Jesus Christ = Michael the Archangel
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Jesus Christ = Michael the Archangel
Jesus Christ = Michael the Archangel
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Post evidence to support your claim
Ok
That's not a biblical quote.
Come on. You're a big boy.
Directly quote scripture with explanations or frick off already.
No, posting a youtube link on its own isn't an argument.
The bible quotes are in the video
>The bible quotes are in the video
Exactly, so you can quote them here with a reputable source.
I posted the video which contains the bible quotes, so I have already posted the quotes
I ain’t watching a video for you
Just post the quote homie
>I ain’t watching a video for you
Then why did you ask for quotes if you don't want them
You still haven't posted a single quote from a reputable source anon.
And no, the Book of Mormon and New world translation aren't the Christian bible...
NWT uses the most up to date scholarship and research. It is, without exaggeration, the most accurate translation you'll find.
Why do you JW evangelists always talk and behave like bots? And post a verse that says Jesus is Michael.
>NWT uses the most up to date scholarship
It's completely made-up bullshit only used by Jehovah's Witnesses you stupid frick.
It's in the video
Not him but the verses are in the video
Why?
>
You still haven't posted a single quote from a reputable source anon.
And no, the Book of Mormon and New world translation aren't the Christian bible... (You)
>It's in the video
>
>Not him but the verses are in the video
Nobody cares you stupid frick. Nobody will ever listen to your later saint's gibberish if you can't quote the bible to support your view.
>Why?
Yes, Why did JW's create their own version of the bible with many massive alterations including the removal of every mention of the trinity?
Why are JW's the only people who use their NWT bible?
It's because JW's and Mormons aren't Christians.
>Nobody will ever listen to your later saint's gibberish
Why?
>if you can't quote the bible
I did, I posted the video that quotes the Bible
>Yes, Why did JW's create their own version of the bible
It's more accurate and pleasant to read
>with many massive alterations
Like what?
>including the removal of every mention of the trinity?
Do you have an example?
>Why are JW's the only people who use their NWT bible?
Good question. Why don't they?
>It's because JW's and Mormons aren't Christians.
Why?
Lol, JW anon is incapable of supporting his own statement by quoting the bible. Wow what a surprise.
But I did?
You haven't, you're only capable to post what someone else said and demanding that we watch it. You can't defend your cult yourself. You have failed and you're dishonest so not christlike at all.
>Asks bible quotes
>Post video with Bible quotes
>NOOOOOOO NOT LIKE THIIIS!!!!
?
We're on IQfy, we expect you to post things on IQfy. Posting a verse is such an easy task yet you refuse. We don't care enough to watch your video, either leave this debate or post it.
>Posting a verse is such an easy task yet you refuse
But I did?
>We don't care enough to watch your video
Then why did you ask me to post a verse if you won't look at the verse I quoted?
>leave this debate
Jesus being Michael is not a debate though. It's a fact
The heresy hunters considered serpent worshiping gnostics to be christians, they would never contest that these neo-arians and knock off freemasons aren't christians too.
I saw it in a vision through the Holy Spirit
Doesn't the watchtower say that all true visions, miracles, and other spiritual experiences ended with the apostolic age?
The argument is that the author would have no reason to use a very common philosophical term when he could have just written something else. There's plenty of evidence of other greek israelites using Logos in their exegeses of israeli texts.
>What's an archangel?
Some variety of angel. Why don't you just post the verses saying that Jesus is Michael and get this done with?
>Jesus Christ = Michael the Archangel
OP gives no explanation or biblical quote and posts weeb autistic shit because he's a drooling moron. How predictable.
You can't post it in this thread though, because you're too frightened to defend your cult. You need to post someone else saying it so you can feel reassured because you have no true faith in this. You're a coward.
>Is the Father greater than the Son?
As it says in the Gospel of John, what's your point?
>You can't post it in this thread though, because you're too frightened to defend your cult. You need to post someone else saying it so you can feel reassured because you have no true faith in this. You're a coward.
I don't understand
>As it says in the Gospel of John, what's your point?
So the Father alone is God, hence the trinity is false
You have no true faith in this, you have no education in your scripture, and you have no confidence in defending your religion. That's why you refuse to post scripture and explain why Jesus is Michael yourself, you don't truly believe this. In regards to that verse, trinitarians interpret it to mean that the Son is a less great aspect of the godhead than the Father is. How is it evidence that Jesus is Michael?
No you didn't, you posted someone else saying it. You're a dishonest coward.
>Then why did you ask me to post a verse
So you will post a verse, which you haven't done.
>You have no true faith in this, you have no education in your scripture, and you have no confidence in defending your religion
Why?
>That's why you refuse to post scripture
But I did? It's in the video
>explain why Jesus is Michael yourself
All the bible quotes are in the video
>you don't truly believe this.
Why?
>In regards to that verse, trinitarians interpret it to mean that the Son is a less great aspect of the godhead than the Father is
What's a godhead?
>How is it evidence that Jesus is Michael?
All the bible quotes are in the video
>No you didn't, you posted someone else saying it.
I posted the verses through the video
>You're a dishonest coward.
Why?
>So you will post a verse, which you haven't done.
I did, I posted the video
You have demonstrated your lack of faith by your failure to defend your religion. Your video is of someone else, not yourself. You can't defend it. There is nothing stopping you from posting the verses here.
>What's a godhead?
The divinity of god, you seem unacquainted with normal religious terminology.
>Why?
You refuse to post the verses in this thread and explain why they mean that Jesus is Michael.
So if I post the verses through a video, then you consider that I have not posted the verses
Correct?
Yes. Post the verses here and explain how they mean that Jesus is Michael.
>Yes
Good!
Now, let me ask you: is Jesus the creator of everything?
The Gospel of John says that through the Logos all things were made.
Because that is not indicated in the scripture
>The Gospel of John says that through the Logos all things were made
Very good!
So, based on what you said earlier, Jesus is not the Creator. Is that correct?
>Because that is not indicated in the scripture
How do you determine that a person is part of God?
Because they are called god, correct?
If Jesus is interpreted to be the Logos, then everything was made through him. That is not exactly the creator.
>Because they are called god, correct?
In which verse does it say this?
>If Jesus is interpreted to be the Logos, then everything was made through him. That is not exactly the creator
I agree!
Do you also agree that God is the Creator?
>In which verse does it say this?
Oh, was I mistaken? In this case, can you point to me how do you determine that a person is part of God?
Thanks
>Do you also agree that God is the Creator?
That would be the most justified interpretation of christian scripture.
>In this case, can you point to me how do you determine that a person is part of God?
That's on you, you have to post that verse anon.
>That would be the most justified interpretation of christian scripture.
Awesome. So we have established that:
The Logos is Jesus.
The Logos is not the Creator.
God is the Creator.
Ergo, we can conclude that Jesus is not God.
Do we agree?
>That's on you, you have to post that verse anon.
A verse that demonstrates what? I'm not making a point, I asked a question
We have not established that the Logos is Jesus, that the Logos is not the creator, or even that "God" is the creator. You're trolling right?
>I asked a question
The answer is that the New Testament was composed of several different authors, possible in opposition to each other, with no unified intention. So there is no clear answer, unless you can post a verse.
>We have not established that the Logos is Jesus
Really? Who is the Logos according to you?
>The answer is that the New Testament was composed of several different authors
But God is the author of the Bible. Isn't God only one author?
The Logos is a concept taken originally from Greek philosophy, then later used by Greek speaking israelites to refer to an aspect of their god. The Gospel of John begins with a short poem about this concept.
>Isn't God only one author?
There are many books where the alleged authors introduce themselves with their names.
>The Logos is a concept taken originally from Greek philosophy, then later used by Greek speaking israelites to refer to an aspect of their god. The Gospel of John begins with a short poem about this concept.
What pakes you think the Logos whom John speaks about is the same Logos of Greek philosophy?
>There are many books where the alleged authors introduce themselves with their names.
Who inspired them to write?
Because of the cultural contact between these two cultures, and the fact that the author of John decided to write Logos when he could have just used another word.
>Who inspired them to write?
Their religious devotion inspired them, you will say that your god did it. Please post a verse.
>Because of the cultural contact between these two cultures, and the fact that the author of John decided to write Logos when he could have just used another word.
Do you know what polysemy means?
>Their religious devotion inspired them, you will say that your god did it. Please post a verse.
What does 2 Timothy 3 Verses 16 say?
The Logos was a well known concept in philosophy at that time, the author was clearly trying to interest Greek audiences by writing it. He would have known of the associations it had and would have used another word if he wanted to.
>What does 2 Timothy 3 Verses 16 say?
This is amusing isn't it, so you're quite comfortable posting a verse for the well known and commonly accepted doctrine of divine inspiration. But when it comes to Jesus being Michael, you're too scared to post anything and try to flee the argument by posting what someone else said.
>The Logos was a well known concept in philosophy at that time, the author was clearly trying to interest Greek audiences by writing it. He would have known of the associations it had and would have used another word if he wanted to.
Is your argument that polysemy didn't exist back then?
>This is amusing isn't it, so you're quite comfortable posting a verse for the well known and commonly accepted doctrine of divine inspiration. But when it comes to Jesus being Michael, you're too scared to post anything and try to flee the argument by posting what someone else said.
What's an archangel?
>The divinity of god,
So angels are part of the godhead? They are divine too
Christians that go to heaven also have a divine nature, are they part of the godhead?
No, they are not part of God. This is a bot isn't it?
>they are not part of God
Why not?
No. If that were the case then he could have come strait to the earth without need of being born.
Why?
Because Michael already existed at the time and did not need to be born.
Why not? It wa God's will
What part of "already existed" didn't you understand?
What part of "it was God's will that Michael be born on earth" did YOU not understand?
>No. Are you denying the overwhelming evidence that greek israelites applied the greek concept of Logos to their religion?
Do you have evidence that this is how the early Christians understood John 1:1?
>Who knows
What does the prefix "arch-" mean?
As they interpreted it as what?
>What does the prefix "arch-" mean?
It means importance.
>it was God's will that Michael be born
Jesus is God's only begotten son, so no, Michael is not Jesus since Michael is of a different order of beings. Jesus is an order above the angels and the angels are below him in the hierarchy.
The First Apology of Justin Martyr equates Logos in John with the Logos of Socrates, identifies the Logos as Jesus, and also praises Socrates.
What's the logos of Socrates? Is it a person?
>Michael is of a different order of beings.
Why?
>Jesus is an order above the angels and the angels are below him in the hierarchy.
I agree, that's what archangel means. So Jesus is the archangel!
So it means "most important angel", correct?
The Logos is a form of reason and linked to Plato's theory of forms. It is not a person according to Plato, however Justin Martyr describes how this Logos of Socrates became a man. So this is proof that early christians understood the Logos of John to be the same Logos of Greek philosophy.
>So it means "most important angel", correct?
No, it has no strict or definite meaning. The use of the prefix implies an archangel is important or a leading angel, but it does not define it as the "most important angel" as you're saying it does. This discussion is absolutely ridiculous, the way you are behaving is absurd and pathetic. Just post the verses that say that Jesus is Michael.
>It is not a person according to Plato
Alright!
Is it a person according to John?
>No, it has no strict or definite meaning. The use of the prefix implies an archangel is important or a leading angel, but it does not define it as the "most important angel" as you're saying it does.
Then what does it mean?
>This discussion is absolutely ridiculous, the way you are behaving is absurd and pathetic.
Why?
>Just post the verses that say that Jesus is Michael.
Michael is the archangel, correct? If so, shouldn't we first define what an archangel is?
>Is it a person according to John?
No, it does not say in the Gospel of John that the Logos is a person, according to Justin Martyr it's that Socrates simply didn't know it as a person since it hasn't became one yet.
>Then what does it mean?
It means an angel that's important
>Why?
They way you refuse to simply post the verses that say Jesus is Michael and explain why, and are instead asking these silly questions while talking in this puerile, condescending way.
>Michael is the archangel, correct?
It says this in the scripture.
> If so, shouldn't we first define what an archangel is?
You could have done this immediately from the start, but due to your cowardice you didn't
>No, it does not say in the Gospel of John that the Logos is a person
Can you read John 1:14 please?
>It means an angel that's important
Does the Bible identify any other archangels other than Michael?
That may have originally referred to how the Logos is now manifesting itself in humans, it does not explicitly say the Logos is a person. There are no other archangels identified than Michael in the canon, however the apocryphal work that was written before Jude that influenced the canon mentions several archangels.
>That may have originally referred to how the Logos is now manifesting itself in humans, it does not explicitly say the Logos is a person
"So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth."
Who is this talking about?
>There are no other archangels identified than Michael
Alright, so it seems to me that Michael must be the most important angel due to his unique position!
Now, what do we know about Michael?
Can you tell me?
>however the [headcanon]
lol
The first part of the verse refers to the Logos, after that it can be interpreted in Greek to a separate sentence without the and, a new sentence about Jesus.
> Michael must be the most important angel
In the new testament canon which had no single author, with the apocryphal works as previously mentioned not so much.
>Now, what do we know about Michael?
What do you have to say? Why are you asking for answers?
>then you consider that I have not posted the verses
No because you did not post them
>No
Good!
So if everything was created through Jesus, then Jesus is not the Creator
Correct?
>after that it can be interpreted in Greek to a separate sentence without the and, a new sentence about Jesus
Does any early christian confirm that Jesus is not the Logos?
>In the new testament canon which had no single author
Is God not a single author?
>What do you have to say? Why are you asking for answers?
I'm trying to help you
If you don't know, here are all verses that mention Michael
https://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-conclude-that.html?m=1
Based on these verses, what can you conclude about Michael?
>Does any early christian confirm that Jesus is not the Logos?
Yes, the gnostics had a range of bizarre ideas about it.
>Is God not a single author?
Your god did not author the new testament.
The conclusion about Michael is you are going off a three verses to prove he's Jesus. Do you have an example of a verse in the bible that says the person, and then says they have an aspect of their job title? Like perhaps "Peter had the voice of a disciple"? Because the only normal way that anyone would read that is that it's a metaphor. Do you have an ancient source of someone thinking Jesus is Michael?
>Yes, the gnostics
Not Christians according to the Prophet Paul
>Your god did not author the new testament.
Why not?
>Do you have an ancient source of someone thinking Jesus is Michael?
Melito, the second century Christian, said Jesus is the archangel
>Not Christians according to the Prophet Paul
When did Paul write that? It was his epistles that led to gnosticism being started, and he was considered the heretic by the established church at that point. That can't be anyway since gnosticism wasn't even a thing then.
>Why not?
Because if he did he would have made it clear what everything meant, presuming your god is perfect
>Melito, the second century Christian, said Jesus is the archangel
Where?
>When did Paul write that?
What does 1 Corinthians 6:20, 21 say?
>It was his epistles that led to gnosticism being started,
What does Paul's teaching have to do with gnostics? (nothing)
>and he was considered the heretic by the established church at that point.
Why are you making things up now? I expected better of you
>Because if he did he would have made it clear what everything meant,
Why?
>Where?
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/spicilegium_6_melito_fragments.htm
>Ebionites
Not Christians according to the Prophet Paul
>What does 1 Corinthians 6:20, 21 say?
It's a verse that doesn't seem to have any relation to second century heresies
>What does Paul's teaching have to do with gnostics?
His references to an archon ruling the world was used as evidence for gnosticism
>Why are you making things up now? I expected better of you
In Antioch Paul argued with Peter about doctrines, mainly circumcision, and them Peter and other apostles all rejected Paul and refused to speak to him. After that they didn't communicate with Paul and he mainly communicated with gentiles since then.
>Why?
So everyone can know the true gospel, instead of thousands of different sects?
Melito just says that Jesus was an archangel to the angels, not that Jesus is the single archangel and also Michael. The fact that it says words like prophet and priest in the singular before that should be enough to refute this.
>It's a verse that doesn't seem to have any relation to second century heresies
Can you quote it?
>His references to an archon ruling the world
What verse?
>In Antioch Paul argued with Peter about doctrines, mainly circumcision, and them Peter and other apostles all rejected Paul and refused to speak to him. After that they didn't communicate with Paul and he mainly communicated with gentiles since then.
What verse?
>So everyone can know the true gospel, instead of thousands of different sects?
God has always used an organized teaching method to disseminate his Truth i.e., Patriarchs, Prophets, Priests and Apostles. The current method is the True Christian Congregation. Paul identified this channel when he wrote that "there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord." (Eph.3:10, 11; Jn.6:67,68; Heb.13:17)
>Melito just says that Jesus was an archangel to the angels, not that Jesus is the single archangel and also Michael.
Is there anyone else than Michael who is identified as the Archangel?
>Can you quote it?
you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.
>What verse?
Ephesians 2:2
>God has always used an organized teaching method to disseminate his Truth
That doesn't explain why God couldn't have just written a clear bible where everyone can easily know that Jesus is Michael
>Is there anyone else than Michael who is identified as the Archangel?
In the apocrypha and catholic tradition yes. Why don't you post an example of an early christian clearly stating that Jesus is Michael?
It's my fault, I meant 1 timothy 6:20,21
>Ephesians 2:2
He's talking about Satan, where does it mention an archon?
>That doesn't explain why God couldn't have just written a clear bible
He didn't need to
>everyone can easily know that Jesus is Michael
Those who have discernment recognize it
>In the [headcanon]
>Why don't you post an example of an early christian clearly stating that Jesus is Michael?
Melito
>1 timothy
That's not written by Paul, most scholars agree it's pseudepigraphy
>He's talking about Satan, where does it mention an archon?
It says archon in the Greek you idiot, or did you think ruler was also a word in that language? The gnostics interpreted it as a creator god, in conjunction with several other verses like John 8:44 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Paul's letters were also altered when they were added to the proto-orthodox church's canon.
>He didn't need to
So billions of people not knowing the true gospel until the JWs found it is part of his great plan?
>Those who have discernment recognize it
You mean people will interpret it to what they want it to mean, it's clearly not indicated very well.
>That's not written by Paul,
Based on what proof?
>The gnostics interpreted it as [headcanon]
Doesn't matter
>So billions of people not knowing the true gospel until the JWs found it is part of his great plan?
Yes
>You mean people will interpret it to what they want it to mean, it's clearly not indicated very well.
Paul identified this channel when he wrote that "there might be made known through the congregation the greatly diversified wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose that he formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord." (Eph.3:10, 11; Jn.6:67,68; Heb.13:17)
>Based on what proof?
The way it's written and the contents of it, it doesn't match up in style with the real epistles at all. You can read these academic opinions easily if you want to.
>Yes
Why didn't your god ensure his gospel was clear from the start?
>Paul identified this
He was most likely referring to different philosophies to understand god, not separate teachings where people are unable to know the real gospel
>The way it's written and the contents of it, it doesn't match up in style with the real epistles at all.
who’s to say that writing style cannot evolve as the author grows older?
>Why didn't your god ensure his gospel was clear from the start?
God only reveals its meaning to those who are sincere
>He was most likely [headcanon]
Why do you resist God
>who’s to say that writing style cannot evolve as the author grows older?
Because it's not just that, there are several different factors in this, you'd have to read academic articles. But the gnosticism he seems to respond wasn't happening until the second century.
>God only reveals its meaning to those who are sincere
So all christians were insincere until the JWs came along?
>there are several different factors in this,
No there aren't
>So all christians were insincere until the JWs came along?
No, it just wasn't the right time
The prophet Daniel said knowledge would be abundant in the time of the end
The end times started in 1914
>No there aren't
There aren, this has been known for centuries
>No, it just wasn't the right time
So god doesn't reveal truth until now?
you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.
wouldn't that go against gnositc hatred for matter?
>Does any early christian confirm that Jesus is not the Logos?
Ebionites saw him as a man, adopted by God as his son, which seems to represent the oldest view to me. IMO the identification of Jesus as the Logos goes back to Philo or an unattested antecedent thereof. Philo equated Messiah and Logos (the "second God", as he called it), so if Jesus was the Messiah...
Did they use John though? But yeah adoptions was definitely the original idea and what the baptism story referred to. It's the greek influence that caused them to say Jesus was god.
No, the final redaction of John was around the turn of the second century. The Ebionites had their own gospel, probably in Aramaic, which most likely was authored earlier than, and contained old traditions deliberately contradicted by, the NT canon.
>They way you refuse to simply post the verses that say Jesus is Michael and explain why, and are instead asking these silly questions while talking in this puerile, condescending way.
I am simoly trying to reason with you, you shouldn't accept any answer I give you!
>You could have done this immediately from the start, but due to your cowardice you didn't
It's done on purpose, because now we have established that Jesus is not the Creator and therefore not God
You're not being reasonable at all. The reasonable thing to do would be to just post the verses.
>because now we have established that Jesus is not the Creator and therefore not God
When was this established?
>You're not being reasonable at all
I disagree
>When was this established?
If I post the verses through a video, then you consider that I have not posted the verses
Correct?
>I agree, that's what archangel means. So Jesus is the archangel!
No. The only begotten son of God, the Christ, Jesus is an order above the angels, even above the archangels. Further, they are a separate order of being from one another, the son of God being not of the same kind of thing as any sort of angel.
What's an angel?
>The argument is that the author would have no reason to use a very common philosophical term when he could have just written something else. There's plenty of evidence of other greek israelites using Logos in their exegeses of israeli texts.
So you're saying polysemy didn't exist back then?
>Some variety of angel.
How does it differ from other angels?
No. Are you denying the overwhelming evidence that greek israelites applied the greek concept of Logos to their religion?
>How does it differ from other angels?
Who knows, presumably archangels are some sort of leading angels but even that is unclear, why don't you explain? Why don't you just post the verses that say that Jesus is Michael instead of this nonsense?
Happy Birthday JWAnon!