PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: Is this really demonic doctrine or what...



Freak
December 1st, 2002, 04:12 PM
Me Again once stated (in fact during our formal debate) that Jesus existed under the person of an angel. In his own words: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Jesus is Jesus. He is not an angel. Angels are created beings. Jesus is Deity. Basic theology. But to Me Again "Biblical Theology 101" is puzzling and very confusing.

I'm very curious :confused: Detective. What do you believe of Jesus? Is He God? Or do you still believe what you said a few months ago: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

No reason to be confusing with your answer just a simple:

Yes, I believe Jesus is God and not an angel.

or-

No, I do not believe Jesus is God and I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 04:17 PM
That Jesus was the archangel Michael is so easily disproved:

-God has complete authority over Satan JOB_1:6-2:7

-Archangel Michael has no authority over Satan JUDE_9

-Jesus, the Son of Man is less than Angels HEB_2:7-9

-Jesus, the Son of God has authority over Satan MT_4:10, MK_8:33, LK_22:31

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 04:20 PM
I do not believe that Jesus was Michael, but... that idea by itself, has historically been accepted within the pale of orthodoxy as long as the Trinity was not denied. To single this idea out as some demonic doctrine is just not fair or accurate, at least in light of the history of the faith. Again, I repeat, I do not agree with the idea, but I know many orthodox people who do.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I do not believe that Jesus was Michael, but... that idea by itself, has historically been accepted within the pale of orthodoxy as long as the Trinity was not denied. To single this idea out as some demonic doctrine is just not fair or accurate, at least in light of the history of the faith. Again, I repeat, I do not agree with the idea, but I know many orthodox people who do.

DD, you said confidently, as one who has evidence: I do not believe that Jesus was Michael, but... that idea by itself, has historically been accepted within the pale of orthodoxy as long as the Trinity was not denied.

Within the pale of orthodoxy, huh? Can you prove that it is the case? Or is this simply your opinion on this matter?

No, it is not orthodox to consider that Jesus was an angel. That is absurd. Jesus, is the unique God-man not an angel.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 05:24 PM
If there is any doubt that Barlett isn't back, that doubt is now gone. Hurray!!! :rolleyes::up:

Jay, you asked the same question in another thread and when I took the time to answer you, you never responded to my questions. Here, I'll repost it for you because I like you:
Posted by me again
Jay, I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate form and that He existed prior to His physical birth. This leads me to some pointed questions for you. In your opinion: Did the Lord Jesus Christ exist prior to His physical birth?

-- and --

If the Lord Jesus Christ did exist prior to His physical birth, then by what name did He go by? (This one I've got to hear).

-- or --

Do you believe that prior to His physical birth:
1. He was a no-name entity or
2. He was non-existent.Pray tell? :confused: ;) I know you won't bother to answer, but I still like you. :):up:

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by me again
If there is any doubt that Barlett isn't back, that doubt is now gone. Hurray!!! :rolleyes::up:

Jay, you asked the same question in another thread and when I took the time to answer you, you never responded to my questions. Here, I'll repost it for you because I like you:I know you won't bother to answer, but I still like you. :):up:

FYI-my last name is spelled Bartlett.

Please answer my simple question. Are you embarassed to answer it lest you be exposed as another heretic on TOL?

me again
December 1st, 2002, 05:30 PM
Flames Fanned by Freak
No reason to be confusing with your answer. Just a simple: Yes, I believe Jesus is God and not an angel.May I get clarification on the question? :confused:

Thank you, I knew you'd see it my way. ;)

Requested Clarification:When you ask me to declare that Jesus is God, are you referring to Him as:

God the Father

-- or --

God the SonPray tell? :confused: :)

me again
December 1st, 2002, 05:36 PM
Posted by Freak
Please answer my simple question. Are you embarassed to answer it lest you be exposed as another heretic on TOL? I'm shocked that you'd dare to lump me in the same heretical category as sheepdog and Axacta. :shocked:

Wait until they hear about this. ;)

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 05:38 PM
Me again said:

>>>"If a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Moslem or [insert the person’s name here] goes to heaven, it is through Jesus."<<<

Because Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems do not accept Jesus as Savior, Me again obviously believes it is not necessary to believe in Christ as Savior to be saved - this is heresy!

AVmetro
December 1st, 2002, 05:38 PM
I don't believe Jesus was Michael. Heb1 pretty much refutes that idea. As for pre-existence and what His name was. See Jn1..cf..Rev19:13 or 'Word/Wisdom of God'.

Of course I don't see why "YHWH" doesn't suffice.

Further:

The word we translate into 'angel' is more accurately 'messenger'. I once had a quote stating that in the old Hebrew the word for 'messenger' (can't even think of the word anymore) meant 'manifestation' as well. You can find it on the "Is this proof of the Trinity" thread.

Read:

Exo 3:2 and there appeareth unto him a messenger of Jehovah in a flame of fire, out of the midst of the bush, and he seeth, and lo, the bush is burning with fire, and the bush is not consumed.

Exo 3:4 and Jehovah seeth that he hath turned aside to see, and God calleth unto him out of the midst of the bush, and saith, `Moses, Moses;' and he saith, `Here am I.'

Jdg 13:18 And the messenger of Jehovah saith to him, `Why is this--thou dost ask for My name? --and it is Wonderful.' YLT

..cf..

Isa 9:6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Or as the LXX has it:

Isa 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

________________

God bless--AVmetro

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 05:39 PM
Me again said:

>>>"I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form."<<<

==========

That Jesus was the archangel Michael is so easily disproved:


-God has complete authority over Satan JOB_1:6-2:7


-Archangel Michael has no authority over Satan JUDE_9


-Jesus, the Son of Man is less than Angels HEB_2:7-9


-Jesus, the Son of God has authority over Satan MT_4:10, MK_8:33, LK_22:31

==========

Me again said:

>>>"The scriptures and the scriptures alone are my guide."<<<

>>>Let's stick to the scriptures to make our case.<<<

Based on me again's claims, me again is a heretic!

AVmetro
December 1st, 2002, 05:41 PM
God the Father

-- or --


God the Son

Or..

'Son of God' which entails 'God'. See Jn5:18; Jn19:7; Dan7 etc..

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 05:45 PM
Me again says:

>>>The scriptures and the scriptures alone are my guide.<<<

>>>Let's stick to the scriptures to make our case.<<<

>>>Wow!!! Axacta (alter ego), you're still not providing any scriptural support for this thread?<<<

=========

And me again also says:

>>>The scriptures are replete with the consequences of unconfused [unconfessed] sin that we refuse to repent of.<<<

==========

But when challenged to present supporting Scripture me again admitted:

>>>If we confess our sin to God, would He grant us reprieve from the negative consequences that could result in this mortal life? I want to say yes, but I’m not sure that I could find scriptural support.<<<
==========

Me again at first claimed "scriptures and the scriptures alone are my guide", and claimed that Sheepdog and I were heretics. We presented this Scripture as evidence:

1Jn.3.5-6 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Me again responded:

>>>This is the only scripture that I am unable to explain<<<

==========

Me again admitted what he teaches is not supported by Scripture, and that he could not refute our Scriptural evidence.

Therefore me again is a hypocrite, and by his own definition, a heretic!

==========

Me again said:

>>>Are you more concerned with how you look or with the veracity of the scriptures?<<<

So me again answer your own question - " Are you more concerned with how you look or with the veracity of the scriptures?"

me again
December 1st, 2002, 05:55 PM
Posted by Axacta
Me again said:>>>"If a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Moslem or [insert the person’s name here] goes to heaven, it is through Jesus."<<<Because Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems do not accept Jesus as Savior, Me again obviously believes it is not necessary to believe in Christ as Savior to be saved - this is heresy! Only through Jesus can a man go to heaven.

If Jesus decides to allow a Hindu into His kingdom, what business is that of yours? :confused: ;)

If a Hindu in the year 1750 died without ever hearing the Gospel of Jesus -- and if he goes to heaven -- it is through Jesus. ;)

Praise the Lord!!! :):up:

cirisme
December 1st, 2002, 05:57 PM
And you're just now noticing this, freak? :shocked:

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 06:00 PM
>Only through Jesus can a man go to heaven.<

That is not the dispute. Your statement presupposes that one does not have to accept Jesus as Savior to be saved.

Please provide Scripture to support this belief.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 06:03 PM
Posted by Axacta >Only through Jesus can a man go to heaven.<That is not the dispute. Your statement presupposes that one does not have to accept Jesus as Savior to be saved.

Please provide Scripture to support this belief. The kingdom of heaven belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who determines who will enter His kingdom.

You want scriptures that prove exactly what? :confused:

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 06:09 PM
>You want scriptures that prove exactly what?<

To hold up your claim that Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems can be saved without accepting Christ as their Savior. Because if they did accept Christ as their Savior they would be Christians not Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems.

TheologyOnTap
December 1st, 2002, 06:21 PM
What happened to Freak giving Me Again the answer to the questions posed to Freak?

It seems fair that if Me Again needs to answer according to the parameters Freak has laid out, such a standard cuts both ways...

I'd was getting really interested in this...

C'mon Freak...

where are you?

AVmetro
December 1st, 2002, 06:27 PM
The kingdom of heaven belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who determines who will enter His kingdom.

And His *guidelines* FOR acceptance are laid out in the scriptures.

AVmetro
December 1st, 2002, 06:30 PM
What happened to Freak giving Me Again the answer to the questions posed to Freak?

Freak believes in the deity of Christ. YHWH is the name of God. Freak is a Trunitarian and therefore the name of Christ is YHWH, YHWH our salvation, 'Word', etc..
Heb1:10-12; Zech14:3-4..cf..Acts1:11-12; etc..

me again
December 1st, 2002, 06:47 PM
Posted by Axacta
To hold up your claim that Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems can be saved without accepting Christ as their Savior. Because if they did accept Christ as their Savior they would be Christians not Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems. Axacta, if a Hindu has never heard of Jesus... and if he dies... can the Lord Jesus allow that Hindu into His kingdom?

:)

Calvinist
December 1st, 2002, 06:50 PM
We are all saved by GOD'S grace and nothing more, but He has elected some for salvation according to His own purposes. And He has orderd His most perfect Redemption for those of us in Christ. HOWEVER, If HE choses to Elect some righteous person who does not know of Christ, then He us just to do so. It is God's business not ours.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 06:56 PM
Posted by Calvinist
We are all saved by GOD'S grace and nothing more, but He has elected some for salvation according to His own purposes. And He has orderd His most perfect Redemption for those of us in Christ. HOWEVER, If HE choses to Elect some righteous person who does not know of Christ, then He us just to do so. It is God's business not ours. Amen Amen and Amen!!! :)

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 07:06 PM
>We are all saved by GOD'S grace and nothing more, but He has elected some for salvation according to His own purposes. And He has orderd His most perfect Redemption for those of us in Christ. HOWEVER, If HE choses to Elect some righteous person who does not know of Christ, then He us just to do so. It is God's business not ours.<

Scripture...

Calvinist
December 1st, 2002, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Axacta
>We are all saved by GOD'S grace and nothing more, but He has elected some for salvation according to His own purposes. And He has orderd His most perfect Redemption for those of us in Christ. HOWEVER, If HE choses to Elect some righteous person who does not know of Christ, then He us just to do so. It is God's business not ours.<

Scripture...

Scripture for what? Election or the Philosophical Position that since God is in control of HIS universe He can do what he wishes and is always just when doing so?

Election verese:
(Psalms 65:4) "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple."

(Psalms 105:6) "O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen."

(Matthew 24:24) "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

(Matthew 24:31) "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

(Mark 13:20) "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days."

(John 6:37) "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

(John 6:65) "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

(John 13:18) "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."

(John 15:16) "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

(John 17:9) "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

(Acts 13:48) "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

(Romans 8:29-30) "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. {30} Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

(Romans 8:33) "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth."

(Romans 9:11-13) "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) {12} It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. {13} As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

(Romans 9:23) "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

(Romans 11:5) "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

(Romans 11:7) "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded"

(Ephesians 1:3-6) "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: {4} According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: {5} Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, {6} To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."

(Ephesians 1:11) "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"

(1 Thessalonians 1:4) "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God."

(1 Thessalonians 5:9) "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"

(2 Thessalonians 2:13-14) "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: {14} Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

(1 Timothy 5:21) "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

(2 Timothy 1:9-10) "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, {10} But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

(2 Timothy 2:10) "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory."

(Titus 1:1) "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;"

(1 Peter 1:1) "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"

(1 Peter 2:9) "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

(1 Peter 5:13) "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 07:46 PM
Freak I will get you that documentation. You should know that I did not just state my own opinion since I don't have a horse in this race. I really don't care. I was just posting that information in the interest of being fair. This has not historically been considered a heresy.

Yxboom
December 1st, 2002, 07:50 PM
What about the teaching that a person does not have a God in him but is one :noid:

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 07:57 PM
Good point Boom... Freak is attacking a teaching that was held by the Reformers and accepted within orthodoxy (they did not believe Christ was ontologically an angelic being, any more than we do when we hold that the Angel of the Lord was Christ - which presumably Freak would have no problem with), while defending people who teach or believe utter blasphemy.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Freak I will get you that documentation. You should know that I did not just state my own opinion since I don't have a horse in this race. I really don't care. I was just posting that information in the interest of being fair. This has not historically been considered a heresy.

I'd like to see it. I'm curious why you made that statement knowing full well you have nothing to back it up. If your not interested in this thread then leave. Ok?

Theology-

I have answered the detective's questions.

Jesus Christ is fully God, the second person of the triune God. Nobody can come to God except through Jesus Christ (see John 14:6, Acts 12). The buddhist or hindu who lived in 1780 had their opportunity. Paul makes it clear that no one will have an excuse. Everyone will have an opportunity to know God. First, through general revelation (Romans 1), then through the revelation of the conscience (Romans 2), then finally through the revelation of Jesus Christ (for those in remote places can be revealed the Gospel of Jesus Christ through dreams, visions, etc).

Now, answer my questions, detective.....

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 07:58 PM
Freak I have every right to be here as anyone. And I will expect an apology when I provide the documentation. I have to look it up since as I have said this is not a pet issue with me....

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Good point Boom... Freak is attacking a teaching that was held by the Reformers and accepted within orthodoxy (they did not believe Christ was ontologically an angelic being, any more than we do when we hold that the Angel of the Lord was Christ - which presumably Freak would have no problem with), while defending people who teach or believe utter blasphemy.

Earth to DD...Earth to DD....

An angel is an angel not Deity. Words have meaning behind them. Don't use the words if you don't mean them. One canot hold the view that Jesus manifested as a angel and be considered orthodox. THat is utter blasphemy!

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:01 PM
How about the Angel of the Lord? Wasn't that Jesus? That was Jesus manifested as an angel.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Freak I have every right to be here as anyone. And I will expect an apology when I provide the documentation. I have to look it up since as I have said this is not a pet issue with me....

I'm still curious why you made the statement knowing full well you did not have any documentation.

Besides, Biblically speaking, the burden of proof lies with you (I could care less what some Reformer believed hundreds of years ago) to prove Biblically that the doctrine Me Again embraces is within the pale of orthodoxy.

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:02 PM
And nice dodge on your defense of heresy Freak. But silly us, we expect you to be consistent. You cannot be a heresy hunter and a heresy defender at the same time.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
How about the Angel of the Lord? Wasn't that Jesus? That was Jesus manifested as an angel.

Angel of the Lord was an angel.

Angel means Angel.

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:04 PM
I was arguing history with you Freak.. I don't believe it, so it is in that sense that I really don't care. You can be the lone ranger declaring heresy against the testimony of the historic Church, and that is your business, but you are horribly inconsistent.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:05 PM
How to win friends and influence enemies: A classic statement as only Freak can make:
Posted by Freak
Dee Dee, I'm curious why you made that statement, knowing full well you have nothing to back it up. If your not interested in this thread then leave. Ok?LOL

Oh brother!!! :rolleyes:

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:06 PM
Well, well, well, Freak denies that the Angel of the Lord was Christ. I will remember that next time he is defending the Trinity. Are you aware that John the Baptist is also called an "angelos" - angel?

Well Freak, how consistent are you going to be?? Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy?

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I was arguing history with you Freak.. I don't believe it, so it is in that sense that I really don't care. You can be the lone ranger declaring heresy against the testimony of the historic Church, and that is your business, but you are horribly inconsistent.

Lone ranger? What according to DD? Ha! I would consider you a lone ranger too on preterism.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Well, well, well, Freak denies that the Angel of the Lord was Christ. I will remember that next time he is defending the Trinity. Are you aware that John the Baptist is also called an "angelos" - angel?

Well Freak, how consistent are you going to be?? Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy?

What does angel mean to you? An angel is angel.

John the Baptist was not an angel. He was a human.

Jesus never appeared as an angel-for He is the God-man. Fairly simple but rather confusing for you....

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:08 PM
Lone ranger? What according to DD? Ha! I would consider you a lone ranger too on preterism.

LOLOLOL... if ignorance is bliss you must be ecstatic!!! Are you aware of how many preterists there are on TOL alone?? Are you aware that preterism was a dominant eschatology prior to the advent of dispensational futurist... shall I embarass you by citing numerous historic commentators that were preterist? You are speaking out of your rear once again.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:08 PM
Posted by Freak
Angel of the Lord was an angel. Angel means Angel. That is precisely why I asked you for the name that Jesus had before He was born into a mortal body. :)

I’m still waiting for an answer, but I know it will not be forthcoming, at least not from Jay Bartlett.

I still like you Jay. :):up:
Posted by Dee Dee
Freak, you are speaking out of your rear once again.I'll get the air freshner. :eek:

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


LOLOLOL... if ignorance is bliss you must be ecstatic!!! Are you aware of how many preterists there are on TOL alone?? Are you aware that preterism was a dominant eschatology prior to the advent of dispensational futurist... shall I embarass you by citing numerous historic commentators that were preterist? You are speaking out of your rear once again.

Ha! Here we go again hijacking another thread huh?

Get with your job and that is providing some documentation....

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:09 PM
Please answer these two questions Mr. Dodge:

Are you aware that John the Baptist is also called an "angelos" - angel?

Well Freak, how consistent are you going to be?? Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy?

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by me again
That is precisely why I asked you for the name that Jesus had before He was born into a mortal body. :)

I’m still waiting for an answer, but I know it will not be forthcoming, at least not from Jay Bartlett.

I still like you Jay. :):up:

Well, I don't like you! I love you but don't really like you at all!

I gave you an answer, go back and re-read my earlier posts.

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:11 PM
Ha! Here we go again hijacking another thread huh?


Another false accusation by Freak. No wonder he has such a problem understanding the 6th commandment... he has yet to master "you shall not bear false witness"

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Please answer these two questions Mr. Dodge:

Are you aware that John the Baptist is also called an "angelos" - angel?

Well Freak, how consistent are you going to be?? Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy?

I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

That quote from Detective is heresy. That is what we are dealing with on this thread. If you like to create another thread please do so.....

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


Another false accusation by Freak. No wonder he has such a problem understanding the 6th commandment... he has yet to master "you shall not bear false witness"

Stop being a witch! It was not a false accusation. Leave me alone. Go see your husband and stop bothering me. You have yet to provide that documentation that you said you would provide, little lady.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:13 PM
Posted by Dee Dee Warren
Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy? Right on!!! :up:

I believe that the Angel of the Lord, who spoke from the burning bush, was none other then Christ Himself!!! :):up:

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:16 PM
And Me Again, though we have never agreed on anything else before, you are absolutely right. Freak is reluctant to be consistent and call it heresy because he has just realized the painful corner he has painted himself into and is trying to surgically remove both feet from his mouth. I daresay at least 90% of the Trinitarians here, and Trinitarian commentators believe that the Angel of the Lord was Christ.

That being said, I expressly deny that Michael was Christ, but I do not condemn it as heresy as long as the Trinity is still confessed.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:17 PM
Jay is still winning friends and influencing enemies, eh? :confused:

Look at his deft maneuver to Dee Dee:
Posted by Freak
Stop being a witch! Leave me alone. Go see your husband...Jay, who set your alarm clock?

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:19 PM
Which is it Freak... witch or little lady? Those two ideas seem to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps you will feel better if you start a nasty thread about me. This is sad considering that you and I both agree on the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

Calvinist
December 1st, 2002, 08:19 PM
Did Freak call her a Witch?

Calvinist
December 1st, 2002, 08:20 PM
I think Freak is the conjourer from Acts who was angry that the Apostle cast a demon out of his "magic show."

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
And Me Again, though we have never agreed on anything else before, you are absolutely right. Freak is reluctant to be consistent and call it heresy because he has just realized the painful corner he has painted himself into and is trying to surgically remove both feet from his mouth. I daresay at least 90% of the Trinitarians here, and Trinitarian commentators believe that the Angel of the Lord was Christ.

That being said, I expressly deny that Michael was Christ, but I do not condemn it as heresy as long as the Trinity is still confessed.

More speculation on DD's part!

Back up this claim:

I daresay at least 90% of the Trinitarians here, and Trinitarian commentators believe that the Angel of the Lord was Christ.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Which is it Freak... witch or little lady? Those two ideas seem to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps you will feel better if you start a nasty thread about me. This is sad considering that you and I both agree on the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

DD, it is true, we both agree 100% on the essential doctrines of the faith.

But what bothers me is your unwillingness to defend the nature of Jesus Christ when confronted with this trash: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Michael was not Jesus Christ in pre-human birth form. This is error. Jesus Christ is the God-man, He is not an angel. Would you agree, Me Again?

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:25 PM
Please answer these two questions Mr. Dodge:

Are you aware that John the Baptist is also called an "angelos" - angel?

Well Freak, how consistent are you going to be?? Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy?

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Please answer these two questions Mr. Dodge:

Are you aware that John the Baptist is also called an "angelos" - angel?

Well Freak, how consistent are you going to be?? Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy?

Little lady, I have answered your questions. You just didn't like the answers. I'm still waiting for some documentation, as you promised....

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:27 PM
You did not answer the questions. Both questions require either a yes or a no response, not a tap dance. Soo...

Please answer these two questions Mr. Dodge:

Are you aware that John the Baptist is also called an "angelos" - angel?

Well Freak, how consistent are you going to be?? Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was Christ heresy?

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Freak


DD, it is true, we both agree 100% on the essential doctrines of the faith.

But what bothers me is your unwillingness to defend the nature of Jesus Christ when confronted with this trash: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Michael was not Jesus Christ in pre-human birth form. This is error. Jesus Christ is the God-man, He is not an angel. Would you agree, Me Again?

DD, these are my concerns. Aren't these concerns of yours?

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 08:28 PM
>Election or the Philosophical Position that since God is in control of HIS universe He can do what he wishes and is always just when doing so?<

Calvinist I realize you have a Scripture deficiency, but it doesn't work to place all of your supporting Scriptures for all of your posts since you joined TOL, in one post.

But hang in there - you may get the hang of it sooner or later.

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:31 PM
Yes or no Freak.... the questions are very simple. Let me give you an example.

Question: Dee Dee are you aware that John the Baptist was called an "angelos" - angel.

Answer - Yes I am

Question - Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was the preincarnate Christ a heresy?

Answer: No it is not

See Freak, that is not that hard

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:33 PM
And if you believe that believing that the Angel of the Lord was the preincarnate Christ is heresy, I loudly declare that I believe that absolutely, and dare you to start a thread calling me a heretic for doing so. You won't do that for you know that a great many people here also so believe.....

Calvinist
December 1st, 2002, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Axacta
>Election or the Philosophical Position that since God is in control of HIS universe He can do what he wishes and is always just when doing so?<

Calvinist I realize you have a Scripture deficiency, but it doesn't work to place all of your supporting Scriptures for all of your posts since you joined TOL, in one post.

But hang in there - you may get the hang of it sooner or later.

I don't know what you are talking about and why you insulted me. I know that someone asked for scripture on Election and I gave them to them.

Who pulled your chain? Whoever did needs to ask themselves, "Does anyone really want to hear that little squeeky annoying, heretical, Axacta spread his insults and lies all over the board?" and "Would it matter if he just went away and hung out with the Hedonists that formed his heretical doctrine, "A Christian CANNOT sin"? I saw no!

You didn't even have the decency to reply to the verses and counter the argument. You need to think more, feel less, but work on both cause you obviously didn't take into account what I, or any other Reformed Christian, might think about your drivel.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:35 PM
Such a sneid little... comment:
Posted by Axacta
Calvinist I realize you have a Scripture deficiency.
It doesn't work to place all of your supporting Scriptures for all of your posts since you joined TOL in one post. That is a prime example of why I don't search the scriptures for you -- because you'll just dismiss them without reading them.

Calvinist took a lot of time and effort to post those scriptures. Did you even bother to read them or did you just dismiss them? I dare say it was the latter. :nono:

Axacta
December 1st, 2002, 08:41 PM
>That is a prime example of why I don't search the scriptures for you -- because you'll just dismiss them without reading them.<

Nice try me again - you don't search the Scriptures for anyone. You just teach stuff like confessing sins, for what? - you can't say. Got Scriptures to back it up? - no, but you'll cling to it anyway.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:41 PM
Ahem < clears throat > :eek:

Freak, please re-read this:
Posted by Dee Dee Warren
And if you believe that believing that the Angel of the Lord was the preincarnate Christ is heresy: I loudly declare that I believe that absolutely and dare you to start a thread calling me a heretic for doing so.You won't do that for you know that a great many people here also so believe..... Well Freak? :confused: :):up:

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:43 PM
Posted by Axacta >That is a prime example of why I don't search the scriptures for you -- because you'll just dismiss them without reading them.<Nice try me again - you don't search the Scriptures for anyone. LOL

Where'd you come up with that one? :confused: :eek:

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:43 PM
Me Again, to be clear.. and I think that we are, while I think Freak is greatly over-reacting to this particular issue, on the core issue of Trinitarianism and orthodoxy, I am with him 100%.

me again
December 1st, 2002, 08:46 PM
Posted by Dee Dee Warren
Me Again, to be clear.. and I think that we are, while I think Freak is greatly over-reacting to this particular issue, on the core issue of Trinitarianism and orthodoxy, I am with him 100%. That's fine.

But I want to see if he calls you a heretic for believing that the Angel of the Lord is Christ Himself. :eek:

I'm waiting with baited breath to see what he says. :eek::up:

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:49 PM
But I want to see if he calls you a heretic for believing that the Angel of the Lord is Christ Himself.

Me too.

Calvinist
December 1st, 2002, 08:53 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I want to see if he calls you a heretic for believing that the Angel of the Lord is Christ Himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Me too.

Me three. But he won't because he is a Fraud and a coward. He is just picking on me again for no good reason other than to defend this statement: "A Christian CANNOT sin."

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 08:56 PM
To be clear... I would not call Freak a fraud or a coward. I may call him other things, such as horribly inconsistent, but not those two which I think are too strong... but then again I am a witch.

Calvinist
December 1st, 2002, 09:08 PM
I know you woudn't.

1013
December 1st, 2002, 09:10 PM
I believe I have read somewhere that the angel of the Lord (I could be wrong about this) was paraphrased in the targum (an aramaic paraphrase in existence around the time of Christ) as "the word of the Lord." cross refference that with John and you come up with some interesting implications.

In some narratives, the lord and the angel of the lord were indiscriminantly interchanged.

I don't know if I'd hold that the Angel of the Lord is also God the Son but I find it interesting and an appealing way to see a specific role for Jesus in the Old testament.

As for me again's claim. I don't think you could say that he doesn't know who Jesus is on that account but It seems to me that he doesn't know who the archangel michael is.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by 1013
I believe I have read somewhere that the angel of the Lord (I could be wrong about this) was paraphrased in the targum (an aramaic paraphrase in existence around the time of Christ) as "the word of the Lord." cross refference that with John and you come up with some interesting implications.

In some narratives, the lord and the angel of the lord were indiscriminantly interchanged.

I don't know if I'd hold that the Angel of the Lord is also God the Son but I find it interesting and an appealing way to see a specific role for Jesus in the Old testament.

As for me again's claim. I don't think you could say that he doesn't know who Jesus is on that account but It seems to me that he doesn't know who the archangel michael is.

Very interesting.

Believing what Detective believes though is heretical. Jesus was never an angel. For Jesus is the same today as He will be in the future and as He was in the past. Jesus is the Second Person of the triune God. He is Deity. What do you think Me "Detective" Again?

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 10:22 PM
So Freak, answer my challenge.

Freak
December 1st, 2002, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
So Freak, answer my challenge.

I already did, DD.

I'm exhausted. My wife and I just dealt with a lady from Ohio who came over for some ministry. She was delivered from 4 demons. Praise God.

Dee Dee Warren
December 1st, 2002, 10:34 PM
I do praise God for your ministry but you did not directly answer my challenge. Humor me. I am an idiotic witch. You have to spoon feed it to me. I believe the Angel of the Lord was the preincarnate Christ. IS THAT HERESY???

smilax
December 1st, 2002, 10:45 PM
Genesis xvi, 7-13: "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?"

Was it the angel that spoke to her, or God Himself?

Using your logic, of course, a word is a word, not God.

1013
December 1st, 2002, 10:46 PM
Believing what Detective believes though is heretical. Jesus was never an angel.

If an angel is a messenger and Jesus is the "word" or the messege, it is not a far leap of logic to call him a messenger, (he delivered his own messege)




dd nor I challenge you on the dogmatism with regard to the trinity. but I don't understand why you should be so dogmatic on the range of meaning for the term "angel"

1013
December 1st, 2002, 10:55 PM
who are you talking to smilax?

smilax
December 1st, 2002, 10:57 PM
A green dinosaur.

1013
December 1st, 2002, 10:57 PM
oh never mind

Freak
December 2nd, 2002, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by smilax
Genesis xvi, 7-13: "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?"

Was it the angel that spoke to her, or God Himself?

Using your logic, of course, a word is a word, not God.

When the Scriptures use the word angel it means angel. Angel of the Lord is an angel. . The burden of proof lies with you to tell me God' Son at times manifested as a angel.

Jesus never manifested as an angel. He is the unique God-man.

Freak
December 2nd, 2002, 05:47 AM
This is my problem.

Me Again stated: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Dee Dee Warren
December 2nd, 2002, 06:16 AM
And I want to know if I also am a heretic for believing that the Angel of the Lord in the OT was primarily the preincarnate Christ. Why can't you answer that question?

Brother Vinny
December 2nd, 2002, 06:41 AM
Before I dig in to the topic at hand, I'd like to thank Freak for presenting a worthwhile topic in this thread. And while, yes, Freak is being inconsistent in his attack on what he regards as me again's heresy (all the while giving c. moore's heresies, which are arguably more Satanic, a wink and a nod), this is fodder for another thread, and we should stick to the question at hand.

All of that being said, I have to fall on Dee Dee's "side" of this debate-- I don't believe Michael was the "angel of the LORD," but I do believe that the angel of the LORD (at least, the Old Testament references to him) was a visible manifestation of Him, and that those who do believe that Michael is the pre-incarnate Christ are no more heretical than those who believe Christ was nailed to the cross through the palms of His hands rather than the wrists.

Strong's defines the Hebrew word for angel as:



1) messenger, representative
1a) messenger
1b) angel
1c) the theophanic angel


Pay special attention to definition 1c), as it is the one that has bearing on our discussion. Webster's defines "theophany" (of which "theophanic" is the adjectival form) as:



a visible manifestation of a deity


Now, as Trinitarians, I kinda sorta think we have to believe that Christ appeared in a pre-incarnate form in the Old Testament. Why? Because of a little statement made by John in his Gospel:



No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. --John 1:18


For this statement to be true, how do we account for all the times in the Old Testament where it quite clearly says that man saw God? Moses was at least allowed to see the Lord's backside. How is this?

Simple. God the Son acted as a messenger (or angel, if you will) for God the Father. Not only is this view necessary for the Trinitarian, it also makes it necessary for those who would be within the pale of orthodoxy to be Trinitarian.

Dee Dee Warren
December 2nd, 2002, 06:44 AM
And Paul, you have presented by far the majority view within Trinitarianism. But Freak has made a blanket statement, that he refuses to retract or correct, that seems to indicate that anyone who would believe that the Angel of the Lord was Christ believes a heresy. He really needs to address that.

Dee Dee Warren
December 2nd, 2002, 06:49 AM
And here is my documentation on my earlier statement:

C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things... page 155 and footnote 6.

The notes in the 1599 Geneva Bible (the preferred Bible of the Puritans)

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, Vol 2, pp. 369ff

Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation p 164

Brother Vinny
December 2nd, 2002, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
And Paul, you have presented by far the majority view within Trinitarianism. But Freak has made a blanket statement, that he refuses to retract or correct, that seems to indicate that anyone who would believe that the Angel of the Lord was Christ believes a heresy. He really needs to address that.

I agree. He also needs to address his other inconsistencies as heretic-hunter/heretic-defender.

Would you like to start the thread? Or shall I?

Dee Dee Warren
December 2nd, 2002, 06:58 AM
Would you like to start the thread? Or shall I?

Paul.. have I told you today that I love you?? I was trying to give him a chance to come clean here.. but I was planning on starting a thread if he did not. I keep asking the question, and Freak keeps dancing instead of answering. But you know... if the feeling moves you... go for it!!

Brother Vinny
December 2nd, 2002, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


Paul.. have I told you today that I love you?? I was trying to give him a chance to come clean here.. but I was planning on starting a thread if he did not. I keep asking the question, and Freak keeps dancing instead of answering. But you know... if the feeling moves you... go for it!!

Well, I really hate to start threads :eek: , so I'll give Freak a final opportunity to "come clean" here before I spin a new one off.

Freak, I really hope your next post clarifies your beliefs on this matter. . . .

me again
December 2nd, 2002, 07:59 AM
Well Freak? :rolleyes::up:

Axacta
December 2nd, 2002, 09:11 AM
That Jesus was the archangel Michael is so easily disproved:

-God has complete authority over Satan JOB_1:6-2:7

-Archangel Michael has no authority over Satan JUDE_9

-Jesus, the Son of Man is less than Angels HEB_2:7-9

-Jesus, the Son of God has authority over Satan MT_4:10, MK_8:33, LK_22:31

Well me again?

smilax
December 2nd, 2002, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Freak
When the Scriptures use the word angel it means angel. Angel of the Lord is an angel. . The burden of proof lies with you to tell me God' Son at times manifested as a angel.It says the Lord spoke to her. Why is the angel called the Lord?

Pilgrimagain
December 2nd, 2002, 09:43 AM
I love starting my day with a good laugh.

Dee Dee Warren
December 2nd, 2002, 06:19 PM
I am still waiting for an answer.

smilax
December 2nd, 2002, 06:24 PM
I am still waiting for an answer.

Freak
December 2nd, 2002, 06:26 PM
DD, this is what I have problem with (which is funny because everyone agrees with me LOL):

I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father (A hellish quote from Me Again).

Dee Dee Warren
December 2nd, 2002, 07:03 PM
I would still like you to answer the question as would multiple other people here.

Axacta
December 2nd, 2002, 07:05 PM
I am still waiting for an answer.

me again
December 2nd, 2002, 07:24 PM
Jay, we are all expectantly awaiting your answer with baited breath.

What sayest thou? :confused:

Pray tell? :)

Dee Dee Warren
December 3rd, 2002, 05:05 AM
Are you going to answer the question?

Solly
December 3rd, 2002, 05:41 AM
freak

You are not confusing "The Angel of the Lord" with the created angels in regard to this topic are you?

Angels are spirit beings created by God, to minister to the heirs of salvation.

But the word "Angel" as demonstrated, means "Messenger". Therefore it is not out of place for the Lord, in his pre-incarnate appearances, to be described as "The Angel of the Lord". It is our englishing of the phrase that is at fault, not the theology, or the Bible. Me again is wrong in equating Michael with a theophany of the Son of God, but the principle stands that the Lord did appear to OT saints at times, and he was referred to as "The Angel of the Lord" (the Messenger), the bringer of God's Word, being the Word himself.

peace in Him

Freak
December 3rd, 2002, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Solly
freak

You are not confusing "The Angel of the Lord" with the created angels in regard to this topic are you?

Angels are spirit beings created by God, to minister to the heirs of salvation.

But the word "Angel" as demonstrated, means "Messenger". Therefore it is not out of place for the Lord, in his pre-incarnate appearances, to be described as "The Angel of the Lord". It is our englishing of the phrase that is at fault, not the theology, or the Bible. Me again is wrong in equating Michael with a theophany of the Son of God, but the principle stands that the Lord did appear to OT saints at times, and he was referred to as "The Angel of the Lord" (the Messenger), the bringer of God's Word, being the Word himself.

peace in Him

But the issue is regarding Me Again's strange doctrine that has been denounced by orthodox Christianity. That is what is thread is about.

Dee Dee Warren
December 3rd, 2002, 05:52 AM
And you made certain very incorrect assertions on this thread that you are either too stubborn or too proud to correct or retract. So please answer the question. You are losing whatever credibility you may have initially had in bringing this up.

AVmetro
December 3rd, 2002, 06:24 AM
Christ is by no means 'Michael' nor is Jesus a 'created being'.

Remember though that the Messenger of YHWH was the one who spoke 'I AM' out of the burning bush..cf..Jn8:58.

Solly is right in that 'Angel' often gives off the *stereotypical* image of a 'winged flying ""Angel""' The word does though simply mean 'messenger' which is precisely what the 'Word' of God [Rev19:13] would be.
Did anybody see my posts at the first of the thread? :confused:
The Lxx even refers to Jesus as thus:

Isa 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. [Brenton]

I'll reiterate that I find the idea of Jesus being the Archangel highly inaccurate.

God bless you--AVmetro

Dee Dee Warren
December 3rd, 2002, 06:31 AM
Dear AV:

But my point has been two-fold. First, let's not set up a blanket straw man and knock it down. I have no idea what Me Again believes about the Trinity (and I doubt that he knows either) but the fact remains that there have been orthodox people throughout Church history who have had that Michael is an angelic name for Christ. They have done so without abandaning any shred of Trinitarian orthodoxy, so to pick this particular teaching and to label it as a demonic doctrine is misplaced. Now again, to clarify, the way Me Again intends it may very well be thoroughly in error, but we cannot broad brush this and step beyond what is required.

Second, the other point is that Freak has made many strong statement here insinuating that any belief that Christ was ever referred to as an "Angel" or appeared as the "Angel of the Lord" was just as demonic. He swallowed both feet and is too proud to admit his error.

I don't mind exposing error.. in fact, I like exposing errror, but I have tried to make it my aim to be very fair to those who disagree with me, and not misrepresent or overblow the situation. While I am very strident in my beliefs, I grant the grace to other orthodox variations that I want them to give me.

AVmetro
December 3rd, 2002, 08:16 AM
I must have come off sounding aggravated at something in that post. Was I? :confused:

Dee Dee Warren
December 3rd, 2002, 08:20 AM
Oh no!! I am sorry if I seemed like I was responding in kind to an aggravated post. I am aggravated that Freak is tapdancng and will not answer the question though, so perhaps that is what you sensed.

AVmetro
December 3rd, 2002, 08:30 AM
Oh no!! I am sorry if I seemed like I was responding in kind to an aggravated post. I am aggravated that Freak is tapdancng and will not answer the question though, so perhaps that is what you sensed.

:cry: too late....:cry:

sob..sob.....

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 09:04 AM
>I have no idea what Me Again believes about the Trinity (and I doubt that he knows either)<

LOL!

That Jesus was the archangel Michael is so easily disproved:


-God has complete authority over Satan JOB_1:6-2:7


-Archangel Michael has no authority over Satan JUDE_9


-Jesus, the Son of Man is less than Angels HEB_2:7-9


-Jesus, the Son of God has authority over Satan MT_4:10, MK_8:33, LK_22:31


Me again, this thread is about your assertion - why will you not respond?

smilax
December 3rd, 2002, 09:17 AM
I don't believe Jesus was Michael. However:

God is not limited: Luke i, 37.

Jesus is limited: Mark vi, 5.

God is not a son of man: Numbers xxiii, 19.

Jesus is the Son of man: Matthew viii, 20.

"So easily disproved" is a bit of a stretch. You may have to do a bit more than proof-texting. As for positive evidence, they will point to Daniel x, 21, xii, 1, and Revelation xii, 7.

I think Jude settles it, though.

Dee Dee Warren
December 3rd, 2002, 09:18 AM
Your disproves are not as powerful as you think there Axacta. I don't hold to the doctrine, but it is not demonic as long as the Trinity is preserved, and as a nonadherent, I could defeat those points.

Dee Dee Warren
December 3rd, 2002, 09:20 AM
Jude and Daniel are the most powerful evidences against.. but it is stilll not a demonic doctrine as long as the Trinity is maintained... and I am cutting to the core of Freak's error here.. and that is his reasoning why this is allegedly demonic which is not based upon those proof texts.. it is because he denies that Christ could appear as or be called an Angel, and thus he has inadvertantly heretized (is that a word) most of the Trinitarians here. Freak should be a man and defend his words or retract them as error. We all make error.

Brother Vinny
December 3rd, 2002, 09:31 AM
Christ is by no means 'Michael' nor is Jesus a 'created being'.


I agree. That being said, there are those who would draw attention to Colossians 1:15 to prove otherwise:



He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.(NKJV)


So, how does one rectify the orthodox belief that Jesus is an uncreated being with this verse that seems to say different? Simple. We know that God made man in His own image. God must have, at the very first-- even before He made heaven and the angelic host-- created an image for God the Son to inhabit. This image is what certain Old Testament believers saw when they visibly encountered God.

Now, was this image "Michael"? I don't believe so, but I don't think someone who comes to that conclusion has been seduced by demons (I think a lot of this hypothesis stems from the meaning of the name, Michael-- "who is like God"). Freak has levelled an accusation wholly out of proportion to the degree of the error in question. In doing this, Freak has shown himself to be a respecter of persons: he dislikes me again, so he tears him apart on the smallest of doctrinal issues; on the other hand, he likes c. moore, and is willing to let slide some of the most egregious heresies held by any of our regular posters. Put simply, he strains out a gnat while he swallows a camel.

Dee Dee Warren
December 3rd, 2002, 09:40 AM
Freak has levelled an accusation wholly out of proportion to the degree of the error in question. In doing this, Freak has shown himself to be a respecter of persons: he dislikes me again, so he tears him apart on the smallest of doctrinal issues; on the other hand, he likes c. moore, and is willing to let slide some of the most egregious heresies held by any of our regular posters. Put simply, he strains out a gnat while he swallows a camel.


Well put Paul. I certainly have no great burden to defend Me Again and his doctrines which I have found to be fuzzy at best, but this is not the hill to die on.

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 09:51 AM
>I think Jude settles it, though.<

OK let me get this straight. You don't like my approach, but you agree with the Scripture I use as evidence and my conclusion.

Smilax I get the feeling from you that if I said "Jesus is God", you would immediately root through the Bible to post all of the verses that point out Jesus is a man - just to be contrary.

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 09:58 AM
>I could defeat those points.<

Then please do - don't leave me hanging...

smilax
December 3rd, 2002, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Axacta
OK let me get this straight. You don't like my approach, but you agree with the Scripture I use as evidence and my conclusion.Yep. I disagree with your methods, not your conclusion, (and I would never disagree with Scripture.)
Smilax I get the feeling from you that if I said "Jesus is God", you would immediately root through the Bible to post all of the verses that point out Jesus is a man - just to be contrary.It's the "so easily disproved," the arrogance that your post hinted at, that warranted my post, not a conditioned response to contradict you.

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 10:10 AM
>Yep. I disagree with your methods<

What exactly does this mean - how many methods did I use, pray tell?

>and I would never disagree with Scripture<

Why would you make such a statement? You make it sound as if I accused you of not accepting Scripture, which I never did. Why do you feel the need to torque the discussion like this?

smilax
December 3rd, 2002, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Axacta
What exactly does this mean - how many methods did I use, pray tell?I see three.

1. Proof-texting without ample explanation.
2. Copying and pasting to cry for attention.
3. Inclusion of the phrase "so easily disproved."
Why would you make such a statement?
You don't like my approach, but you agree with the Scripture I use as evidence and my conclusion.Let me break your statement down for you.

1. I don't like your approach.
2. I agree with the Scripture you use as evidence.
3. I agree with your conclusion.

So I agreed that I did not like your approach and that I agreed with your conclusion, and I emphasized that I would never disagree with Scripture. What is the problem?
You make it sound as if I accused you of not accepting Scripture, which I never did.You're hearing things, then.
Why do you feel the need to torque the discussion like this?I think you take personal offense too quickly.

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 10:54 AM
>Proof-texting without ample explanation.<

Couldn't you just ask for an explanation if you couldn't understand? But it seems to me you did understand - so what's the big deal?

>Copying and pasting to cry for attention.<

Cry for attention? More torquing. How about maybe I was just trying to get a response from me again.

>Inclusion of the phrase "so easily disproved."<

Sorry - I thought it was.

>You're hearing things, then.<

I did not question your acceptance of Scripture - if it is not a torque why would you say it?

smilax
December 3rd, 2002, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Axacta
Couldn't you just ask for an explanation if you couldn't understand? But it seems to me you did understand - so what's the big deal?Methodology, not conclusion.
Cry for attention? More torquing. How about maybe I was just trying to get a response from me again.Same thing, different wording.
I did not question your acceptance of Scripture - if it is not a torque why would you say it?I did not say you questioned it--I reaffirmed what you stated.

Solly
December 3rd, 2002, 10:59 AM
Alright you guys, this is a one fight thread, we'll have no brawling in the stalls. Back on topic please.

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 11:02 AM
Solly maybe you could ask me again to address my post - I wouldn't want to be seen as posting another "cry for attention".

Solly
December 3rd, 2002, 11:06 AM
a pleasure

me again, you got mail

night all, see you tomorrow.

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 11:08 AM
Thank you.

me again
December 3rd, 2002, 01:34 PM
Posted by Axacta
Solly maybe you could ask me again to address my post - I wouldn't want to be seen as posting another "cry for attention". We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question. :rolleyes::up:

But he won't answer because if he did, he would look like a jackass. :nono:

Not that he doesn't already. :eek::up:

Axacta
December 3rd, 2002, 01:54 PM
>We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question.<

This thread has been a challenge to you from the very first post.

cirisme
December 3rd, 2002, 02:02 PM
But he won't answer because if he did, he would look like a jackass.

Could we please watch our language? :)

me again
December 3rd, 2002, 05:57 PM
I noticed that Jay Bartlett skipped town when a little bit of scriptural heat was applied. Typical. :rolleyes::up:

And he claims to be a preacher. :nono:

Brother Vinny
December 4th, 2002, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Axacta
>We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question.<

This thread has been a challenge to you from the very first post.

While it is true that this thread was intended as a challenge to me again, the terms of the challenge were so overblown that it is now Freak's credibility that is called into question rather than me again's theology. Freak should never have gone so far as to call me again's doctrine "demonic." Freak based his attack upon me again's doctrine upon faulty premises (for example, the premise that because Jesus is deity He could never act as messenger [angel] for the Father).

Now, Freak could have merely said, "me again is wrong about this, and I intend to show just where he is wrong." But no, Freak had to paint me again as a wolf in sheep's clothing, following the Texan's credo, "Anything worth doin' is worth overdoin'."

So now this thread has two objectives. Sure, it'd be nice for me again to present his argument for Michael as preincarnate Christ-- how about it, me again? But it's now also a quest to determine how far Freak is willing to bend the truth in order to vilify someone he doesn't like.

I want to know how far Freak will go.

It also looks like Dee dee wants to know.

Most importantly, me again wants to know. And me again deserves to know, as the victim of Freak's injustice.

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 05:20 AM
So now this thread has two objectives. Sure, it'd be nice for me again to present his argument for Michael as preincarnate Christ-- how about it, me again? But it's now also a quest to determine how far Freak is willing to bend the truth in order to vilify someone he doesn't like.

I want to know how far Freak will go.

It also looks like Dee dee wants to know.

Most importantly, me again wants to know. And me again deserves to know, as the victim of Freak's injustice.

I most certainly do. And ironically, though Freak is refusing to answer here.. he certainly has had time to go over to another thread and be a pesky little gnat and merely block-quote Jaltus and say, "Yeah, yeah, that's right Jaltus. I can't think of anything original to say, and she has got me pinned against the wall in another thread so I will come over here and claim that it is she who is always ducking the issues if it isn't about eschatology, even though this thread has oodles and oodles of substantive posts by her... yeah, yeah, and then maybe no one will notice that I cannot answer a simply question......"

Answer the question Freak.

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by me again
We're still waiting with baited breath for Jay Bartlett to respond to Dee Dee's question. :rolleyes::up:

But he won't answer because if he did, he would look like a jackass. :nono:

Not that he doesn't already. :eek::up:

I have answered her question. She just doesn't like the answer. When the writers of Scriptures use Angel they mean Angel. They are not mentioning Jesus.

This is a side issue however.

Me Again, what do you believe about Michael (arch angel) and him being Christ?

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:09 AM
I have answered her question. She just doesn't like the answer. When the writers of Scriptures use Angel they mean Angel. They are not mentioning Jesus.


That was not my question Freak... get some reading comprehension. I already knew you thought that, that is what prompted my question. For the umpteenth time.... and let me rephrase it slightly so it will be crystal clear.

If believing that Michael is an angelic name for Christ is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical), is believing that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Christ a demonic doctrinal heresy as well??

Answer the question Freak and stop dancing.

Calvinist
December 4th, 2002, 09:12 AM
He can't answer the question, he never answers to biblical arguments. He is just a combination of whatever peacher tickles his ear and fantasies about casting out devils.

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


That was not my question Freak... get some reading comprehension. I already knew you thought that, that is what prompted my question. For the umpteenth time.... and let me rephrase it slightly so it will be crystal clear.

If believing that Michael is an angelic name for Christ is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical), is believing that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Christ a demonic doctrinal heresy as well??

Enough of the personal attacks upon me.

This is what I considered heretical, when Me Again stated:
Answer the question Freak and stop dancing. I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

He actually believes Michael (an angel) was the Lord Jesus. Re-read his statement. Wanna talk about someone having trouble with reading.....look in the mirror.

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:13 AM
Calvinist.. I am not even making a Biblical argument. I am just asking a simple question on his position.

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:14 AM
I understand Me Again's position on Michael. It is your position that we don't understand and are asking for clarification.


So answer the question Freak. What are you ashamed of?

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Calvinist.. I am not even making a Biblical argument. I am just asking a simple question on his position.

And I'm saying, I talking about this: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Believing Michael (who is angel) was actually Jesus is heresy!

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I understand Me Again's position on Michael. It is your position that we don't understand and are asking for clarification.


So answer the question Freak. What are you ashamed of?

I have answered your questions! What is wrong with you!

I told you that the writers of the Bible was clear-an angel is angel. Jesus is not an angel.

Calvinist
December 4th, 2002, 09:17 AM
Why is it heresy?

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:17 AM
Believing Michael (who is angel) was actually Jesus is heresy!


We understand you believe that, as against the historical Protestant position which has not made such a mountain out of a mole hill... but what we are all dying to know is:

If believing that Michael is an angelic name for Christ is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical), is believing that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Christ a demonic doctrinal heresy as well??

Who says white boys can't dance?

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:19 AM
I have answered your questions! What is wrong with you!



No you have not. That is lie. Reread the question, and answer it. Yes or No. It is really quite simple. Is believing that the Angel of the Lord was the preincarnate Christ a heresy or not? Yes or No. Freak... YES OR NO.

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


We understand you believe that, as against the historical Protestant position which has not made such a mountain out of a mole hill... but what we are all dying to know is:

If believing that Michael is an angelic name for Christ is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical), is believing that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Christ a demonic doctrinal heresy as well??

Who says white boys can't dance?

White boys dancing is way off topic.

Anyway, my stance is rather simple. I believe Me Again is promoting heresy when he tells us: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Michael is an angel. Jesus was never an angel. To think otherwise is heresy.

Brother Vinny
December 4th, 2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Freak
Jesus was never an angel.


So you're saying Jesus never acted as messenger for God the Father in the Old Testament, and that He was never referred to as "the angel of the Lord"?

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:25 AM
White boys dancing is way off topic.

Are you really that humorless??


Michael is an angel. Jesus was never an angel. To think otherwise is heresy.

Your imprecision is thought is alarming. But I think I have an answer... so, before I start a thread about you, I want to make sure I understand.

I believe that the Angel of the Lord (in the OT) was none other than Jesus Christ. Am I embracing a heresy?


PS: Your imprecision is in that you seem to have no concept that people such as myself have never claimed that Jesus was ever ontologically an category of created being called "angel."

Calvinist
December 4th, 2002, 09:25 AM
I could be persuaded to believe as you do if you could simply argue from the Bible why you believe this is true. Make you biblical argument to support your belief plain to us.

me again
December 4th, 2002, 09:37 AM
Posted by Freak
I have answered her question. She just doesn't like the answer. When the writers of Scriptures use Angel they mean Angel. They are not mentioning Jesus. Reply:
Posted by Dee Dee Warren
That was not my question Freak... get some reading comprehension. I already knew you thought that, that is what prompted my question. For the umpteenth time.... and let me rephrase it slightly so it will be crystal clear.If believing that Michael is an angelic name for Christ is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical), is believing that the Angel of the Lord was in fact the preincarnate Christ a demonic doctrinal heresy as well??Answer the question Freak and stop dancing. Reply:
Posted by Freak
Enough of the personal attacks upon me.Jay, it is not a personal attack upon you. Just answer the question. If you really believe that you answered the question, then your understanding of the scriptures is much lower than what I previously anticipated.
Posted by Freak
I have answered your questions! What is wrong with you [all]!Nothing is the matter with us. Please answer the question.

Let me restate the question for you: If believing that "Michael is an angelic name for Christ" is a demonic doctrine (i.e. heretical):

Then is it a demonic doctrine to believe that the "Angel of the Lord" in the burning bush was, in fact, the preincarnate Christ? Pray tell? :confused:

Brother Vinny
December 4th, 2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
PS: Your imprecision is in that you seem to have no concept that people such as myself have never claimed that Jesus was ever ontologically an category of created being called "angel."

Then there's the just-as-important question: Just because me again insists that Michael the Archangel was the pre-incarnate Christ, does that mean me again thinks Christ was ontologically an angel?

If not, and if me again doesn't think Christ was a created being, then Freak really needs to apologize. I don't think he will, as Freak's crusades are often motivated more by his feelings toward a person rather than pursuit of the truth (hence the fact that c. moore, a personal friend of Freak's, has never been called out by Freak for his destructive heresies). Still, an apology to me again would go a long way toward re-establishing Freak's credibility.

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 09:42 AM
Me Again please tell us if this a popular belief in your cult?

I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Is this a belief that must be embraced by your group?

DD,

If you believe Jesus is an angel then yes that is heresy.

Calvinist
December 4th, 2002, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Freak
Me Again please tell us if this a popular belief in your cult?

I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Is this a belief that must be embraced by your group?

DD,

If you believe Jesus is an angel then yes that is heresy.

Prove your belief from Scripture.

When you won't defend your statement you prove Paul right, "Freak's crusades are often motivated more by his feelings toward a person rather than pursuit of the truth (hence the fact that c. moore, a personal friend of Freak's, has never been called out by Freak for his destructive heresies)."

You are a FRAUD Freak, plain and simple.

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:46 AM
Freak... don't hurt yourself, but you are confusing issues and terms again, and I am asking you to use that brick you call a brain:


DD,

If you believe Jesus is an angel then yes that is heresy.


I made myself abundantly clear that I do not believe that Jesus was ever ontologically a created being called an "angel." I do believe that Jesus, while remaining fully God, was called the "Angel of the Lord." Before I jump to conclusions, I want to be absolutely sure we understand each other. Given that very clear defintion of what I believe... is that heresy. Yes or No.

Brother Vinny
December 4th, 2002, 09:46 AM
I don't think Freak knows what ontology is.

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 09:48 AM
I don't think so either. That can be fatal in a conversation such as this.

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Freak... don't hurt yourself, but you are confusing issues and terms again, and I am asking you to use that brick you call a brain:



I made myself abundantly clear that I do not believe that Jesus was ever ontologically a created being called an "angel." I do believe that Jesus, while remaining fully God, was called the "Angel of the Lord." Before I jump to conclusions, I want to be absolutely sure we understand each other. Given that very clear defintion of what I believe... is that heresy. Yes or No.

Another personal attack from DD.

You said: I made myself abundantly clear that I do not believe that Jesus was ever ontologically a created being called an "angel."

I just wonder what Me Again believes? Does he believe that? That is what I'm trying to get at.

It is within the pale of orthodoxy to believe that the Lord Jesus was called an "Angel of the Lord", though I do believe they are wrong by doing so. But to believe Jesus was essentially a angelic being is heresy.

Me Again what do you believe?

Calvinist
December 4th, 2002, 09:53 AM
FREAK on Heresy: "I BELIEVE THIS WAY SO ANY OTHER BELIEF IS HERESY!"

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 10:00 AM
It is within the pale of orthodoxy to believe that the Lord Jesus was called an "Angel of the Lord", though I do believe they are wrong by doing so. But to believe Jesus was essentially a angelic being is heresy.



Now was that so difficult?? Thank you for your answer.

Pilgrimagain
December 4th, 2002, 10:03 AM
Ok, in all seriousness, I have never really thought much about the "angel of the Lord" being euated with "The Son" Can someone outline the Biblical argument for such a thing?

Dee Dee Warren
December 4th, 2002, 10:06 AM
Ok, in all seriousness, I have never really thought much about the "angel of the Lord" being euated with "The Son" Can someone outline the Biblical argument for such a thing?



Good topic for another thread.

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
Ok, in all seriousness, I have never really thought much about the "angel of the Lord" being euated with "The Son" Can someone outline the Biblical argument for such a thing?

PA, exactly. I do have problems with this position of Jesus being called an "angel", and the Biblical implications of such. I understand many orthodox believers would hold this position but I believe it is a weak view (personally speaking).

Though Me Again's claim in quite cultic: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Calvinist
December 4th, 2002, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Freak


Another personal attack from DD.

You said: I made myself abundantly clear that I do not believe that Jesus was ever ontologically a created being called an "angel."

I just wonder what Me Again believes? Does he believe that? That is what I'm trying to get at.

It is within the pale of orthodoxy to believe that the Lord Jesus was called an "Angel of the Lord", though I do believe they are wrong by doing so. But to believe Jesus was essentially a angelic being is heresy.

Me Again what do you believe?

Now you are dancing again because your FRAUD has been revealed finally. Dance little man, Dance.

You beat the Drum of Heresy over and over again! You were not trying to understand anything about Me Again. Quit your lieing.

Pilgrimagain
December 4th, 2002, 10:17 AM
Whoa there Freak, a weak interpretation (if it is weak) does not a cult make, it only makes a weak interpretation.

Freak
December 4th, 2002, 10:21 AM
This is what I considered cultic not the view DD espoused.

Me Again claims: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Pilgrimagain
December 4th, 2002, 12:43 PM
How do you deem that that is cultic and not simply a bad interpretation.

It seems you use the words "demonic" and "cultic" as an emotional device rather than because of any firm definition of the two.

me again
December 4th, 2002, 12:54 PM
Posted by Freak

Snip...
It is within the pale of orthodoxy to believe that the Lord Jesus was called an "Angel of the Lord."Wow, and it only took 13 pages to get you to admit this. :rolleyes::up:

me again
December 4th, 2002, 12:55 PM
Posted by Calvinist
Freak, now you are dancing again because your FRAUD has been revealed finally. Dance little man, Dance!!!LOL :eek::up:

Pilgrimagain
December 4th, 2002, 01:42 PM
Yeah, that's helpful. Thanks.

me again
December 4th, 2002, 01:47 PM
Yes, that's true. I don't want to make Jay feel bad. That wasn't my intention.

Jay, I apoligize if I made you feel bad. :)

But gee whiz, it took so many pages to get Jay to respond. It appeared that he was being evasive which, ironically, is what he says I am.

Brother Vinny
December 4th, 2002, 07:35 PM
Me again, now that we know you aren't a demoniac, would you mind fleshing out your beliefs about Jesus having been Michael?

Freak
December 5th, 2002, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
Me again, now that we know you aren't a demoniac, would you mind fleshing out your beliefs about Jesus having been Michael?

Now, back to the topic of this thread.

Me Again do you still believe Jesus was at one time Michael the Angel?

Dee Dee Warren
December 5th, 2002, 04:18 AM
Freak, you have loaded the question.

me again
December 5th, 2002, 03:32 PM
Posted by Freak
Now, back to the topic of this thread. Me Again do you still believe Jesus was at one time Michael the Angel? Jay, I'll answer your questions only if you'll answer mine. ;) Do you believe I am a Blood bought Christian who is washed by the Blood of the Lamb?

Do you believe I am a heretic?Pray tell? :confused:

Sozo
February 1st, 2007, 12:04 PM
Now, back to the topic of this thread.

Me Again do you still believe Jesus was at one time Michael the Angel?

Well, do you?

yeshuaslavejeff
October 7th, 2008, 09:54 AM
the disciples of Yahshua, those who obeyed Him,
never asked "who do you say that I am"
nor "what do you think of me?"
because it doesn't matter at all!! (as wrritten by the emissary Paul)...
no,
what matters is what Yhvh Elohim thinks and says and does.
That's all that matters, what does Yhvh think of you ?

...
footnote since today is a critical point in history:
from the GJiGT website/newsletter/email:
quote:
We are NOW in the Days of Awe. Wednesday night, October 8, 2008,
begins the 24 hour Day of Atonement. Any REAL Christian has twice the
reason to observe this ONLY BIBLICALLY REQUIRED FAST DAY, as any Jew
who does not know his Messiah. Can we find God's GRACE? That is the
Question? Can we walk IN the Grace of God? If you do not have a Day
of Atonement, or Yom Kippur, celebration liturgy of which to partake,
click this one and go through it Wednesday night, in the Church of
Jesus Christ in your house.
http://www.moresure word.com/ YOMKIP.HTM

We are NOW in, and will REMAIN in the Days of Awe, from now until the
return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some may say, what makes you so
sure? Because, the LAST allowable step of the ROAD MAP FROM HELL has
been taken with the FORCED FORSAKING OF GAZA, Zeph 2:3. AND the next
step of the ROAD MAP from Hell will surely be taken, and that next
step is the SPECIFIC step which will cause the FURY of God Almighty
to come up in His Face, Eze 38:18, and many other Scriptures. The
effect of EVERY Vision is NOW at hand and there are some things that
BELIEVERS should KNOW.
end quote

Aimiel
October 7th, 2008, 10:01 AM
MeAgain left TOL to start his own Mormon website. Christians are those who believe that not only is Jesus The One and Only Savior, but also The One True God.

yeshuaslavejeff
October 7th, 2008, 10:08 AM
agree, mormons and budhists and r.caths. and baptsts and mthdsts and democrts and pulibcans and hairy crishneas all have their own other beliefs.
for every one
the time is very short now and as it has been for those who honor Yhvh very dangerous and getting more so....

Aimiel
October 7th, 2008, 10:36 AM
It is no more dangerous for believers today than it was in Jesus' day. They crucified Him, because He told The Truth. His followers are not exempt from the same sufferings, but we welcome it. It would be an honor to be killed for being a witness of His Truth.

tetelestai
October 7th, 2008, 01:07 PM
agree, mormons and budhists and r.caths. and baptsts and mthdsts and democrts and pulibcans and hairy crishneas all have their own other beliefs.
for every one
the time is very short now and as it has been for those who honor Yhvh very dangerous and getting more so....

You forgot the heresy of what is known as the “Messianic Jew” movement.

In other words, “Messianic Jew” is heresy.

See HERE (http://www.bethelministries.com/MESSIANIC_JEWS.htm)

Aimiel
October 7th, 2008, 01:17 PM
Messianic Jews don't keep the law to be justified, they do so for a witness to their bretheren, to honor their ancestors and to witness and honor the prophecy Christ fulfilled and will fulfill in the things they perform. You should attend a Messianic Jewish service. They are so full of The Love of God you can't help but be jealous. They're on fire for The Lord. :thumb:

Quasar1011
October 7th, 2008, 04:43 PM
In other words, “Messianic Jew” is heresy.

No it isn't. In 2002, I dated a Jewess. I began taking her to a Messianic Jewish temple. She eventually received Yeshua as her Lord and Saviour. But, she would not call herself a Christian, and instead referred to herself as "Messianic". Why? Because to some Jews, the label "Christian" is heresy!

Aimiel
October 7th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Can you blame them, for all the atrocities that have been heaped upon their ancestors for almost 2,000 years, in the 'name' of Christianity?

yeshuaslavejeff
October 8th, 2008, 01:10 PM
Here and today, the heart breaks for a 'messy' church a few blocks away "aslut christian fellowship" (sic, reverse first word for city)...
they have continued to support ungodly leadership of the country inspite of repeated and very numerous warnings.
they don't listen to Scripture (as soon as the Scripture is brought up, they turn their baks on the speaker)...
sigh, they listen to no one unless their ears get tickled....

yeshuaslavejeff
October 8th, 2008, 01:13 PM
...... and they, like most worldly groups, support the pernicious medico systm that injects posin into thousands of young and old every day, the pernicious politico system that protects the medico system with unjust and damnable laws (the cures used before 1950 aren't allowed legally in the usa; cures for ms, cancer, diabetes, arthritis and so on)...
In fact, they support the widespread introduction of disease on purpose by the bigFarm and bigGov and bigMoney industries...
people of all ages, and animals, are made sick on purpose by the insidious practices and products in the untied states.

Aimiel
October 8th, 2008, 01:38 PM
Jeff, you should start a conspiracy theory website. :squint:

yeshuaslavejeff
October 9th, 2008, 07:49 AM
It is no more dangerous for believers today than it was in Jesus' day. They crucified Him, because He told The Truth. His followers are not exempt from the same sufferings, but we welcome it. It would be an honor to be killed for being a witness of His Truth.

This has been the stated purpose of the RCC, of the new world order, and most insidiously the bigFarma (druglords/manufacturers)...
for hundreds of years...

Pope Gregory VII. decided it was no murder to kill excommunicated persons. This rule was incorporated in the canon law. During the revision of the code, which took place in the 16th century, and which produced a whole volume of corrections, the passage was allowed to stand. It appears in every reprint of the Corpus Juris. It has been for 700 years, and continues to be, part of the ecclesiastical law. Far from being a dead letter, it obtained a new application in the days of the Inquisition; and one of the later Popes has declared that the murder of a Protestant is so good a deed that it atones, and more than atones, for the murder of a Catholic.Lord Acton, The London Times, July 20, 1872.

Aimiel
October 9th, 2008, 07:54 AM
It's funny, the Catholics, murdering protestants, have been making martyrs of those they perceive as demonic, while the 'martyrs' of Islam have been jumping headlong into hell by blowing themselves up in acts of mass-murder. Ironic.

yeshuaslavejeff
October 9th, 2008, 07:55 AM
Jeff, you should start a conspiracy theory website. :squint:

Conspiracy?.... Yahshua said plainly "the whole society lies in the hands of hasatan" - the world is controlled by him, the politicos, medicos, newspapers, schools, wall street....
..
this is complete OPPOSITE of a theroy,
it is on the other hand A THEORY that democracy is good, or capitilism, or Roman C., or the FDA or the AMA ....
A THEROY that is easily seen as perverse and false...

since THE WHOLE WORLD is LOST, whoever stands up for the TRUTH is of course HATED, PERSECUTED, and treated as rebels.

Aimiel
October 9th, 2008, 08:01 AM
:doh:

Aimiel
October 9th, 2008, 08:02 AM
So, basically, everyone is to blame, and only you are correct?