Out of the Mouth of The Beast

[EastCoastRemnant]

That Christ isn't an angelic creature?

I like how you try to twist my words to try and make a point... if this is all you got, it speaks volumes.

An archangel is a chief (archos) angel (angelos). Christ isn't an angel, to be one of the chief angels one needs to be an angel in the first place. Michael is only one of the archangels, and is only called an archangel in Scripture because there existed a tradition among Jews and Christians of archangels (plural) of which Michael is but one.

-CryptoLutheran

Can you show me where an archangel is plural? All I find is a singular reference...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Never happened.

Because you say so, right?

Is Jesus Christ Cyrus the Great? Your reasoning would, concerning the use of the term "prince", seem to require that this be so given that Cyrus is called God's messiah. Who else is the Messiah but Jesus, therefore Cyrus is Jesus.

Here's another shovel by the way.

-CryptoLutheran

You think your making intelligent rebuttals with your hubris and sarcasm...

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, I have no idea actually, but Tom Cruise or John Travolta just might.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you believe prophesies can have more than one fulfillment?

No......then it would not be a prophecy....it would be a guess.....

 

[Wgw]

You mean like the seventh day Sabbath being changed to the first day? Except of course, the RC believing they have the authority to do so outside of scripture.

Not just the Roman church.

Here is a list of all apostolic churches that one could argue existed at the time of the council of Nicea that worship primarily on Sunday, that were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church:

• Albanian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
• Ancient Church of the East
• Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO)
• Armenian Apostolic Church
• Assyrian Church of the East
• The Church of Cyprus (Archbishophric, EO)
• Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria
• Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church
• Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church
• Greek Orthodox Church (Church of Greece)
• Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria
• Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople
• Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem
• Georgian Orthodox Church
• Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church
• Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (Church of India)
• Church of Sinai (Autonomous archbishophric, EO)
• Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch

Cyrus was a type of Christ...

By this same argument, I could claim St. Michael is a type of Christ, which defeats your literalist exegesis.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

By this same argument, I could claim St. Michael is a type of Christ, which defeats your literalist exegesis.

Except the passage where Christ comes with a shout with the voice of the archangel...

 

[civilwarbuff]

Except the passage where Christ comes with a shout with the voice of the archangel...

That's what you are hanging your hat on....really?

 

[Wgw]

Except the passage where Christ comes with a shout with the voice of the archangel...

That's what you are hanging your hat on....really?

The passage in question, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, is better translated as "with the voice of an archangel," the form used by the NKJV as well as the Challoner Douay Rheims.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I like how you try to twist my words to try and make a point... if this is all you got, it speaks volumes.

You wanted Scripture that shows that Christ is not Michael. Since Michael is an angel, and angels are creatures, this was the only possible way for me to respond.

Can you show me where an archangel is plural? All I find is a singular reference...

The concept of chief angels (αρχάγγελοι) is present within Second Temple Judaism, the Epistle of Jude is the only place in the Bible that uses the term "archangel", but Jude is not being novel, but speaking from an established tradition of chief angels present already first within Second Temple Judaism and the early Christian movement.

An exact numeration of such angels is not found, but in addition to Michael we can include Gabriel, 2 Esdras 4:36 mentions the archangel Uriel (the text is also known as 4 Esdras and sometimes as 3 Esdras given the complexity of naming conventions, and is considered apocryphal by extent Christian groups, though was in the King James and other early English translations until the late 19th century). Here is the relevant text from the KJV,

"And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance."

I don't expect you to consider this particularly convincing, but the fact remains that in both Jewish and Christian tradition (from which Jude is written) the concept of chief angels was never singular, the idea of multiple higher angels has been present for a long time. Insisting that there is only one archangel, Michael, is a modern idea that requires divorcing Scripture from its ancient historical context.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wgw]

You wanted Scripture that shows that Christ is not Michael. Since Michael is an angel, and angels are creatures, this was the only possible way for me to respond.



The concept of chief angels (αρχάγγελοι) is present within Second Temple Judaism, the Epistle of Jude is the only place in the Bible that uses the term "archangel", but Jude is not being novel, but speaking from an established tradition of chief angels present already first within Second Temple Judaism and the early Christian movement.

An exact numeration of such angels is not found, but in addition to Michael we can include Gabriel, 2 Esdras 4:36 mentions the archangel Uriel (the text is also known as 4 Esdras and sometimes as 3 Esdras given the complexity of naming conventions, and is considered apocryphal by extent Christian groups, though was in the King James and other early English translations until the late 19th century). Here is the relevant text from the KJV,

"And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance."

I don't expect you to consider this particularly convincing, but the fact remains that in both Jewish and Christian tradition (from which Jude is written) the concept of chief angels was never singular, the idea of multiple higher angels has been present for a long time. Insisting that there is only one archangel, Michael, is a modern idea that requires divorcing Scripture from its ancient historical context.

-CryptoLutheran

If we include 1 Enoch, we also get Metatron.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you believe prophesies can have more than one fulfillment?

Possibly. But I would need a reason to believe so. I accept that the statement "out of Egypt I called My son" refers both to Israel in the context of Hosea and was seen by St. Matthew also to be an allusion to Christ and thus he references it in his gospel text.

That's fine.

I'm not fine with arbitrarily choosing double meanings because it is expedient and convenient for them to do so in order to justify, ad hoc, their particular sectarian dogmas.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[civilwarbuff]

You said that much better than I did....

 

[ViaCrucis]

If we include 1 Enoch, we also get Metatron.

Second Temple literature is filled with all sorts of names for angels. Because Judaism developed a more complex angelology during and following the Babylonian Exile. Without which Daniel doesn't make any sense, nor does the language of angels and demons in the New Testament make any sense. Prior to the Exile the Jews didn't really pay much care or notice to the idea of angels, they are hardly mentioned at all until after the Exile, where they become very frequent.

Seeing as Christianity was born in the context of Second Temple Judaism, it's this rich angelological tradition that is inherited by the early Christians and, thus provides a context for Jude's comments in his letter. It's also telling that Jude refers Second Temple literature, namely Enoch and the Assumption of Moses.

I don't expect our SDA friend to be particularly interested in these particular facts however. Not where sectarian dogma must supersede historical inquiry and analysis.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Except the passage where Christ comes with a shout with the voice of the archangel...

Not hard to pull off when the hosts of heaven are present with Him at His coming.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You wanted Scripture that shows that Christ is not Michael. Since Michael is an angel, and angels are creatures, this was the only possible way for me to respond.



The concept of chief angels (αρχάγγελοι) is present within Second Temple Judaism, the Epistle of Jude is the only place in the Bible that uses the term "archangel", but Jude is not being novel, but speaking from an established tradition of chief angels present already first within Second Temple Judaism and the early Christian movement.

An exact numeration of such angels is not found, but in addition to Michael we can include Gabriel, 2 Esdras 4:36 mentions the archangel Uriel (the text is also known as 4 Esdras and sometimes as 3 Esdras given the complexity of naming conventions, and is considered apocryphal by extent Christian groups, though was in the King James and other early English translations until the late 19th century). Here is the relevant text from the KJV,

"And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance."

I don't expect you to consider this particularly convincing, but the fact remains that in both Jewish and Christian tradition (from which Jude is written) the concept of chief angels was never singular, the idea of multiple higher angels has been present for a long time. Insisting that there is only one archangel, Michael, is a modern idea that requires divorcing Scripture from its ancient historical context.

-CryptoLutheran

When I look in my concordance, the word comes up singular just as it appears in Esdras... you can't contrive many from the word 'the'... could it be that Uriel is another name for Christ, He has many you know.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Not hard to pull off when the hosts of heaven are present with Him at His coming.

-CryptoLutheran

And you think Christ's triumphant appearing will be a cacophony of voices? I think the Heavenly host will be reverent in this event and not ballyhooing like a rogue band of miscreants.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Alright, last post from me on this as it's obvious that the opinion of those who disagree with my position will not see it in another hundred posts.

The point of this exchange was in response to those saying that Adventists are out to lunch on this belief... I gave scriptural evidence that it is as sound a doctrine as many that are in their churches. Something about stones and glass houses...

 

[civilwarbuff]

And you think Christ's triumphant appearing will be a cacophony of voices? I think the Heavenly host will be reverent in this event and not ballyhooing like a rogue band of miscreants.

Then you "think" wrong..we are instructed to make a "a joyful noise" unto the Lord...

 

[ViaCrucis]

When I look in my concordance, the word comes up singular just as it appears in Esdras... you can't contrive many from the word 'the'... could it be that Uriel is another name for Christ, He has many you know.

That's the thing about concordances, their purpose is to give a word count and provide references where they are found. A concordance doesn't provide anything more than this sort of information.

Jesus Christ has one name, Jesus. He has many titles, but the name He has He was given by Joseph and Mary in accordance with the instruction "You shall call His name Jesus". He certainly has many titles, and many different terms to speak about Him, He is the Christ, that is to say He is the Messiah, He's the King of kings, the Lord of lords, He is Lord, Savior, God, Son, Logos, the Son of Man, the Son of David, the Root of Jesse, the Morning Star, Almighty, the Eternal, Holy One, etc.

However not included in what He is called is archangel, Michael, or Uriel. These the Christian Church has never called Him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

And you think Christ's triumphant appearing will be a cacophony of voices? I think the Heavenly host will be reverent in this event and not ballyhooing like a rogue band of miscreants.

You call it a cacophony, I'd call it the joyous and victorious sound of the triumphant and returning Lord.

Here are some other examples of "ballyhooing" in Scripture:

"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the LORD sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of His robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above Him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!'" - Isaiah 6:1-3

"Around the throne, and on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with a face like a human face, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and inside. Day and night without ceasing they sing, 'Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty, who was and is to come!'" - Revelation 4:6-8

The thing about God's angels seems to be that they just can't seem to keep quiet when it comes to making noise to praise and glorify God.

-CryptoLutheran