ARCHIVE: Is this really demonic doctrine or what...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Calvinist.. I am not even making a Biblical argument. I am just asking a simple question on his position.

 

[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?

 

[Freak]

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]

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]

Why is it heresy?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here is the question, one more time...

Here is the question, one more time...

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?

 

[Brother Vinny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I don't think Freak knows what ontology is.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I don't think so either. That can be fatal in a conversation such as this.

 

[Freak]

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]

FREAK on Heresy: "I BELIEVE THIS WAY SO ANY OTHER BELIEF IS HERESY!"