Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Who is Michael in scripture?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
In a bout of laziness I have copied and pasted here, from the book "Insight On the Scriptures the evidence, complete with scriptures which leads the JWs, and myself, to believe that the one who came to earth to become incarnate in the flesh of Jesus and thus take on that name is Michael.

The scriptures cited convinced me, make up your own minds.

Feel free to check them, preferably in one of the more honest translations:

MICHAEL (meaning Who Is Like God?)

The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of [Daniel"s] people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses" body.""Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel"s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end" (Da 11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 12:1) Michael"s "standing up" was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." (Da 12:1) In Daniel"s prophecy, "standing up" frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah"s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har"Magedon."Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God"s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea."" Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael"s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), "the Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God" (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 10:02:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In a bout of laziness I have copied and pasted here, from the book "Insight On the Scriptures the evidence, complete with scriptures which leads the JWs, and myself, to believe that the one who came to earth to become incarnate in the flesh of Jesus and thus take on that name is Michael.

The scriptures cited convinced me, make up your own minds.

Feel free to check them, preferably in one of the more honest translations:

MICHAEL (meaning Who Is Like God?)

The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of [Daniel"s] people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses" body.""Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel"s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end" (Da 11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 12:1) Michael"s "standing up" was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." (Da 12:1) In Daniel"s prophecy, "standing up" frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah"s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har"Magedon."Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God"s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea."" Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael"s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), "the Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God" (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.

He's the arch angel. He led a fight against Satan. The terms kings, priests, prince, etc are used towards many and all of us at some point in the Bible. The answer to "Is Christ Michael?" is undeterminable or "not enough information".
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:08:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 10:02:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In a bout of laziness I have copied and pasted here, from the book "Insight On the Scriptures the evidence, complete with scriptures which leads the JWs, and myself, to believe that the one who came to earth to become incarnate in the flesh of Jesus and thus take on that name is Michael.

The scriptures cited convinced me, make up your own minds.

Feel free to check them, preferably in one of the more honest translations:

MICHAEL (meaning Who Is Like God?)

The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of [Daniel"s] people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses" body.""Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel"s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end" (Da 11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 12:1) Michael"s "standing up" was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." (Da 12:1) In Daniel"s prophecy, "standing up" frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah"s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har"Magedon."Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God"s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea."" Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael"s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), "the Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God" (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.

He's the arch angel. He led a fight against Satan. The terms kings, priests, prince, etc are used towards many and all of us at some point in the Bible. The answer to "Is Christ Michael?" is undeterminable or "not enough information".

ME: When these terms you use, are used in scripture they are invariably directed to various persons, and there is no doubt as to who they are directed to, this is evident in the above explanation.

Just a question for you: IN the book of Revelation it states that Michael and his angels fought with Satan and his angels, and Michael prevailed and Satan was cast down to the vicinity of the earth. Who else, but the Son of God could take on that task and win, remember too, that God is not an angle.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:01:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
After they had allegedly assured us they " Make Sure of All Things " the Botchtower initially assured us that in their own supposed Gods Opinion, Mikey is NOT = jebus!

"Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him;" [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because He has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they."" Zion's Watch Tower 1879 Nov p.4

In blatant defiance against their own supposed God, they currently preach the very opposite!
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 2:07:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:08:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 10:02:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In a bout of laziness I have copied and pasted here, from the book "Insight On the Scriptures the evidence, complete with scriptures which leads the JWs, and myself, to believe that the one who came to earth to become incarnate in the flesh of Jesus and thus take on that name is Michael.

The scriptures cited convinced me, make up your own minds.

Feel free to check them, preferably in one of the more honest translations:

MICHAEL (meaning Who Is Like God?)

The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of [Daniel"s] people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses" body.""Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel"s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end" (Da 11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 12:1) Michael"s "standing up" was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." (Da 12:1) In Daniel"s prophecy, "standing up" frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah"s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har"Magedon."Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God"s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea."" Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael"s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), "the Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God" (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.

He's the arch angel. He led a fight against Satan. The terms kings, priests, prince, etc are used towards many and all of us at some point in the Bible. The answer to "Is Christ Michael?" is undeterminable or "not enough information".

ME: When these terms you use, are used in scripture they are invariably directed to various persons, and there is no doubt as to who they are directed to, this is evident in the above explanation.

Just a question for you: IN the book of Revelation it states that Michael and his angels fought with Satan and his angels, and Michael prevailed and Satan was cast down to the vicinity of the earth. Who else, but the Son of God could take on that task and win, remember too, that God is not an angle.

It refers to usas kings and priests. It also refers to Satan as "prince" and even God of this world. This is why I don't use such titles to blindly assign Michael to being Christ. Michael is referred to as a prince and so is Christ, but Christ is referred to as a King, where Michael is not.

Who can cast out Satan? Anyone whom God is with.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:07:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel.

Your entire OP was a bit of a stretch to be honest what translation do you prefer? because I'm confused how you came to the conclusion above it's basically an assertion. In the underlined that is the only thing that can be assumed about that passage but no, it is in no way suggesting He is "in fact, himself the archangel", that is not what it suggests at all. The wording and the way it's written suggest the opposite actually as you said yourself 1. it could simply be a comparison or 2. it could be that the archangel made the sound and not Jesus Himself..... Why are you assuming that Jesus is the one making the sound which is why I want you to post your translation to see how they worded it.
Since I know you hate the KJV I'm just going to pick any one on the list (which I looked at many different ones and none suggest what you asserted) because I don't know what is your preferred version....
1 Thessalonians 4:16
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;

This is one of your so-called evidences that Jesus is the archangel. Notice how it says "with" both the voice of the angel and with the trump, nowhere does it suggest Jesus made either the voice of the archangel or the sound of the trump.
Here is what it should say if we take your assertion as true...."for the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven and shout, as the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God"...but it doesn't say that does it?
Here is one translation that was much different than the rest, this one below...

"16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel"s call and with the sound of God"s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first."

Even in the above translation it is clear that the angel's call and the sound of God's trumpet are independent of Christ, the most we could say here is that Jesus made an initial command, the archangel called and the sound of God's trumpet blasted, that's it.

So if I had to speculate anything about this passage I would say it suggests that Jesus will descend along with a voice, along with a trump...not that He is the angel or the trump, anything beyond that is a huge stretch.
If we accept your assertion that Jesus is the archangel voice then by the same standard we could assume Jesus is trump of God as well lol, neither make sense. It says "with" the voice, and "with" the trump of God.... in other words "along" with. Again Jesus makes a command, an archangel voices and the sound of God's trumpet...three separate events from three sources.


So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:55:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 2:07:07 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:08:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/1/2016 10:02:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In a bout of laziness I have copied and pasted here, from the book "Insight On the Scriptures the evidence, complete with scriptures which leads the JWs, and myself, to believe that the one who came to earth to become incarnate in the flesh of Jesus and thus take on that name is Michael.

The scriptures cited convinced me, make up your own minds.

Feel free to check them, preferably in one of the more honest translations:

MICHAEL (meaning Who Is Like God?)

The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of [Daniel"s] people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses" body.""Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel"s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end" (Da 11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 12:1) Michael"s "standing up" was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." (Da 12:1) In Daniel"s prophecy, "standing up" frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah"s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har"Magedon."Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God"s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea."" Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael"s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), "the Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God" (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.

He's the arch angel. He led a fight against Satan. The terms kings, priests, prince, etc are used towards many and all of us at some point in the Bible. The answer to "Is Christ Michael?" is undeterminable or "not enough information".

ME: When these terms you use, are used in scripture they are invariably directed to various persons, and there is no doubt as to who they are directed to, this is evident in the above explanation.

Just a question for you: IN the book of Revelation it states that Michael and his angels fought with Satan and his angels, and Michael prevailed and Satan was cast down to the vicinity of the earth. Who else, but the Son of God could take on that task and win, remember too, that God is not an angle.

It refers to usas kings and priests. It also refers to Satan as "prince" and even God of this world. This is why I don't use such titles to blindly assign Michael to being Christ. Michael is referred to as a prince and so is Christ, but Christ is referred to as a King, where Michael is not.

Actually it refers to all human kings and governments
.

Who can cast out Satan? Anyone whom God is with.

Absolutely, because it is only with Jehovah's power that Satan can be defeated, since he is also a powerful Angel albeit a fallen one.

Hence it took a war in heaven to cast him and his demons out Revelation 12.

However only the only begotten son of God would have been in charge of such a war, which would have involved all the faithful Angels fighting on his side.

Michael is that only begotten son of God who was sent to earth to become incarnate in Jesus flesh. He was originally known also as the Word, as Jehovah's spokesman to humanity, and is now also known as Jesus, and the Christ.

The Word and the Christ are titles. the names identify his person.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 12:58:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 2:01:27 AM, Composer wrote:
After they had allegedly assured us they " Make Sure of All Things " the Botchtower initially assured us that in their own supposed Gods Opinion, Mikey is NOT = jebus!


So? As you ow that was not the only mistake they made, but unlike you they learned by their errors.

Maybe you should try it sometime.

It is interesting that past errors are all you have to hold against them.

That means your past and present errors will be held against you unless you learn from them Matthew 7:1-5.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:00:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:51:42 AM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
Except that it is not evidence. It is theology.

no, it is evidence, scientific, and historical, as well as theological.

However you need to establish the veracity of the scientific and historical before the theological has any real value.

I have done.

Maybe you should try it, it will surprise you.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:01:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 10:02:44 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In a bout of laziness I have copied and pasted here, from the book "Insight On the Scriptures the evidence, complete with scriptures which leads the JWs, and myself, to believe that the one who came to earth to become incarnate in the flesh of Jesus and thus take on that name is Michael.

The scriptures cited convinced me, make up your own minds.

Feel free to check them, preferably in one of the more honest translations:

MICHAEL (meaning Who Is Like God?)

The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of [Daniel"s] people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses" body.""Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel"s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end" (Da 11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 12:1) Michael"s "standing up" was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." (Da 12:1) In Daniel"s prophecy, "standing up" frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah"s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har"Magedon."Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God"s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea."" Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael"s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), "the Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God" (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.

He's the arch angel. He led a fight against Satan. The terms kings, priests, prince, etc are used towards many and all of us at some point in the Bible. The answer to "Is Christ Michael?" is undeterminable or "not enough information".

I disagree, I think they evidence is very strong if not absolutely definitive. I cannot see another possible conclusion. Circumstantial evidence still can have great value.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 1:04:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 12:07:45 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel.

Your entire OP was a bit of a stretch to be honest what translation do you prefer? because I'm confused how you came to the conclusion above it's basically an assertion. In the underlined that is the only thing that can be assumed about that passage but no, it is in no way suggesting He is "in fact, himself the archangel", that is not what it suggests at all. The wording and the way it's written suggest the opposite actually as you said yourself 1. it could simply be a comparison or 2. it could be that the archangel made the sound and not Jesus Himself..... Why are you assuming that Jesus is the one making the sound which is why I want you to post your translation to see how they worded it.
Since I know you hate the KJV I'm just going to pick any one on the list (which I looked at many different ones and none suggest what you asserted) because I don't know what is your preferred version....
1 Thessalonians 4:16
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;

This is one of your so-called evidences that Jesus is the archangel. Notice how it says "with" both the voice of the angel and with the trump, nowhere does it suggest Jesus made either the voice of the archangel or the sound of the trump.
Here is what it should say if we take your assertion as true...."for the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven and shout, as the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God"...but it doesn't say that does it?
Here is one translation that was much different than the rest, this one below...

"16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel"s call and with the sound of God"s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first."

Even in the above translation it is clear that the angel's call and the sound of God's trumpet are independent of Christ, the most we could say here is that Jesus made an initial command, the archangel called and the sound of God's trumpet blasted, that's it.

So if I had to speculate anything about this passage I would say it suggests that Jesus will descend along with a voice, along with a trump...not that He is the angel or the trump, anything beyond that is a huge stretch.
If we accept your assertion that Jesus is the archangel voice then by the same standard we could assume Jesus is trump of God as well lol, neither make sense. It says "with" the voice, and "with" the trump of God.... in other words "along" with. Again Jesus makes a command, an archangel voices and the sound of God's trumpet...three separate events from three sources.



So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.

Well, you have the right to hold whatever opinion you wish.

However I think you are wrong, and I think the evidence is strong enough to prove that, circumstantial as it may be.

But then I would not have presented it as such for your perusal, and decision, if I did not.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 5:50:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 12:58:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/2/2016 2:01:27 AM, Composer wrote:
After they had allegedly assured us they " Make Sure of All Things " the Botchtower initially assured us that in their own supposed Gods Opinion, Mikey is NOT = jebus!


So? As you ow that was not the only mistake they made, . . . .

You continue to LIE!

They can't ' make mistakes ' because -

***The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 7:36:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 5:50:40 AM, Composer wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:58:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/2/2016 2:01:27 AM, Composer wrote:
After they had allegedly assured us they " Make Sure of All Things " the Botchtower initially assured us that in their own supposed Gods Opinion, Mikey is NOT = jebus!


So? As you ow that was not the only mistake they made, . . . .

You continue to LIE!

They can't ' make mistakes ' because -

***The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. (The Watchtower 1931 November 1 p.327)

Yup, as always, same old same old, you ignore the simple fact that they learned from mistakes like that.

But of course historical mistakes are the only things you have to truly hold against them since everything else the teach has always been based on their understanding of scripture.

It's abut time you started lerning, assuming you are remotely capable of doing so.
tarantula
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:24:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 9:46:41 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In a bout of laziness I have copied and pasted here, from the book "Insight On the Scriptures the evidence, complete with scriptures which leads the JWs, and myself, to believe that the one who came to earth to become incarnate in the flesh of Jesus and thus take on that name is Michael.

The scriptures cited convinced me, make up your own minds.

Feel free to check them, preferably in one of the more honest translations:

MICHAEL (meaning Who Is Like God?)

The only holy angel other than Gabriel named in the Bible, and the only one called "archangel." (Jude 9) The first occurrence of the name is in the tenth chapter of Daniel, where Michael is described as "one of the foremost princes"; he came to the aid of a lesser angel who was opposed by "the prince of the royal realm of Persia." Michael was called "the prince of [Daniel"s] people," "the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 10:13, 20, 21; 12:1) This points to Michael as the angel who led the Israelites through the wilderness. (Ex 23:20, 21, 23; 32:34; 33:2) Lending support to this conclusion is the fact that "Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses" body.""Jude 9.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God"s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be "the archangel," meaning "chief angel," or "principal angel." The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with "a commanding call." It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation "archangel" applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel"s voice" would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to "the time of the end" (Da 11:40) and then stated: "And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel"s] people." (Da 12:1) Michael"s "standing up" was to be associated with "a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." (Da 12:1) In Daniel"s prophecy, "standing up" frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah"s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har"Magedon."Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God"s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea."" Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the "time of distress" that is associated with Michael"s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels.

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called "the Word." (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), "the Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) "The Word of God" (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, "Who Is Like God?" points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

So you see there is much scriptural evidence, though no specific scriptural linking.

It just goes to prove what complete and utter nonsense it believed by the unpleasant JW cult. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called Michael!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:24:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 12:58:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
So? As you ow that was not the only mistake they made, . . . .

You try to cover up the fact that they can never make a mistake, because they claim " No man's opinion is expressed " in their Botchtower publications!

Yup! same old me, still exposing lying as-holes like YOU & the Botchtower!

NB: "It matters not whether he proclaims his message with deliberate, willful and malicious intent to deceive, or whether he is the blinded and deluded dupe of Satan and hence unwittingly used of him. In either case, he is a false prophet and hence the agent of Satan". (The Watchtower of 5/15/30, p 154)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:31:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:24:32 AM, Composer wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:58:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
So? As you ow that was not the only mistake they made, . . . .

You try to cover up the fact that they can never make a mistake, because they claim " No man's opinion is expressed " in their Botchtower publications!

No, I just point out that they learned not to say that.

Yup! same old me, still exposing lying as-holes like YOU & the Botchtower!

And missing by miles.


NB: "It matters not whether he proclaims his message with deliberate, willful and malicious intent to deceive, or whether he is the blinded and deluded dupe of Satan and hence unwittingly used of him. In either case, he is a false prophet and hence the agent of Satan". (The Watchtower of 5/15/30, p 154)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:40:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:24:32 AM, Composer wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:58:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
So? As you ow that was not the only mistake they made, . . . .

You try to cover up the fact that they can never make a mistake, because they claim " No man's opinion is expressed " in their Botchtower publications!

At 5/3/2016 8:31:52 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
No, I just point out that they learned not to say that.

So you are now saying = admitting that they lied when they say " No man's opinion is expressed in their Botchtower publications! ".

Yup! same old me, still exposing lying as-holes like YOU & the Botchtower!

NB: "It matters not whether he proclaims his message with deliberate, willful and malicious intent to deceive, or whether he is the blinded and deluded dupe of Satan and hence unwittingly used of him. In either case, he is a false prophet and hence the agent of Satan". (The Watchtower of 5/15/30, p 154)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 9:00:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:24:32 AM, Composer wrote:
At 5/2/2016 12:58:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
So? As you ow that was not the only mistake they made, . . . .

You try to cover up the fact that they can never make a mistake, because they claim " No man's opinion is expressed " in their Botchtower publications!

At 5/3/2016 8:31:52 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
No, I just point out that they learned not to say that.

LMAO@U & Co.

1. An Angel that worships Jesus
"Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him;" [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because He has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they."" Zion's Watch Tower 1879 Nov p.4 (Link to Scanned Image of Original Botchtower publication)

Instead you claim they then learned NOT to say that any longer, but now say -

2. The Pope and Antichrist
"Michael and his angels"--the papacy and its supporters--fought against the dragon--pagan rulers, etc.,-- and the great dragon was cast out of heaven. Zion's Watch Tower 1879 December p.6

According to YOU they must then have learned NOT to say that either but learn to say instead -

3. Michael was the pre-human Jesus Christ
"Can it be that he who was called Michael--Jehovah's chief-messenger--was none other than our Lord in his pre-human condition? we conclude that HE must have been "chief messenger." " Zion's Watch Tower 1883 June p.3

Then dismiss that and instead learn -

4. The Pope again
"Michael.--- "Who as God," the Pope." The Finished Mystery 1917 p.188

Then UNlearn that and learn instead -

5. Jesus in heaven
Since the 1930's Michael is explained to be the heavenly name for Jesus.

You are a Psychotic imbecile & worthy of sharing the Botchtower's insanity!

NB: "It matters not whether he proclaims his message with deliberate, willful and malicious intent to deceive, or whether he is the blinded and deluded dupe of Satan and hence unwittingly used of him. In either case, he is a false prophet and hence the agent of Satan". (The Watchtower of 5/15/30, p 154)
Lonely-Bird
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 3:36:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/2/2016 1:00:02 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:51:42 AM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
Except that it is not evidence. It is theology.

no, it is evidence, scientific, and historical, as well as theological.

However you need to establish the veracity of the scientific and historical before the theological has any real value.

I have done.

Maybe you should try it, it will surprise you.
no, you haven't. you are lying if you say that you have. because you cannot establish it as scientific and historical. provide your proof and do not quote any scripture as proof. if you do so you are engaging in circular reasoning and not supplying proof.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 8:14:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 3:36:28 PM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:00:02 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/2/2016 1:51:42 AM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
Except that it is not evidence. It is theology.

no, it is evidence, scientific, and historical, as well as theological.

However you need to establish the veracity of the scientific and historical before the theological has any real value.

I have done.

Maybe you should try it, it will surprise you.
no, you haven't. you are lying if you say that you have. because you cannot establish it as scientific and historical. provide your proof and do not quote any scripture as proof. if you do so you are engaging in circular reasoning and not supplying proof.

Why should I bother to dig out the evidence for someone who falsely accuses me of lying.

What yu do not understand is the demands of being a follower of Christ.

A follower of Christ cannot lie. It s not an option which can even be considered.

Why?

Well maybe this scripture will explain it:

John 8:44-47
42 Jesus said to them: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God."

How can any follower of Christ even think of lying with that always in the back of our minds.

People like you find it easy to accuse others of lying, because you don't see anything wrong with it yourselves.

But think about it. Everything I do would be for nothing if I lied.

I could not attract people to the truth with lies, because Jehovah demands we worship him with spirit and truth.

John 4:23, 24
23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth."

When I say I have proved the Bible scientifically and historically, I have done.

Whether or not I know where I found the evidence 30 years ago is another story entirely.

But what is to stop you doing the same?

Or do you care so little about truth that you can accept what you are told without trying t take it to pieces.

Thanks to my father, and the only favour he ever did me, I trust no-one and nothing, but you just take it for granted that I am gullible and a liar.

Well fine.

Believe that if you want.

But ask yourself, this?

Why would anyone ever want to become a JW considering how unpopular they are?

Why would anyone but an absolute masochist want to come on here to be insulted time and again if I wasn't 100% sure off my ground.

The Bible also says that "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, and so inevitably the Wisdom of God is also foolishness with those in teh world and immersed in it's wisdom.

Satan, with his influence on the education systems, governments, and people of this world has got you well and truly brainwashed.

Yes I too am brainwashed, and I am not afraid to admit it, but at least I checked out the two opposing camps and deliberately put myself forward for Jehovah's brainwashing rather than Satan's.

But of course first you have to recognise what is wrong with this world and why.

However I will give you a small hint:

Intelligent Design.

Look into that deeply and find out why so many scientists have gone down that route and you too will realise that design also means a designer.

Actually I'll give you more hints. ISBN -10 08308-3216-5 or ISBN-13 978-8308-3216-3 or if you prefer video, you could always find a copy of "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" cheap enough on Amazon or Ebay.

I used to believe in Evolution until I realise how many holes there are in it.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:53:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 8:14:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
But ask yourself, this?

Why would anyone ever want to become a JW considering how unpopular they are?

Why would anyone but an absolute masochist want to come on here to be insulted time and again if I wasn't 100% sure off my ground.

Simple!

Because idiots like you believe because Story book jebus was hated so much, then you must also be on the same/right path as it!

The other fundamental problem you & they also suffer from is insanity, because you fail to recognise the righteous benevolence we bestow upon psychotic idiots like you & Co. instead of us hating you by leaving you to continue to wallow in your own Satanic stupidity & ineptitude!

Your benevolent Mentor & Saviour, Vindicated Moi!