It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The ''pre-incarnate'' Jesus and JW's idea of Jesus being Michael

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


That is very wise, and I thank you for sharing it.

I could hang myself with the amount of words I could write trying to explain God, but there still would be too much unsaid.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
This verse seems to suggest that The Son of Man (Jesus) is something different from All The Angels:



"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne." - Matthew 25:31


So, I would say 'no'. Jesus Christ is not The Archangel Michael.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 

Trust me; JW's could argue all those points with you. But with minds made up, it's a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio
 


Yeah, beliefs are funny that way. I can tell you what I believe all day, but the second I try to tell someone else what they believe is the day that I hang up my hat and call it quits on the whole "enlightenment" thing.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GodIsRelative
 


You really don't know how lucid you were with comment.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   

arpgme
This verse seems to suggest that The Son of Man (Jesus) is something different from All The Angels:



"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne." - Matthew 25:31


So, I would say 'no'. Jesus Christ is not The Archangel Michael.
JW's are often attacked and labelled a ''cult'' with strange beliefs that Jesus is Michael, an angel. Ironically a lot of protestants also believe that Jesus showed up as an angel in the old testament. So whats the difference between the two views?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

So whats the difference between the two views?
Maybe that they present it as an alternative to Jesus somehow being god.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
(2011 NIV)

Which is not saying that Jesus will descend making commands, and speaking as an archangel, and blowing a trumpet.

It is saying that when God commands, and the archangel voices that command, and an angel blows a trumpet, Jesus will be the one descending to take God's people.
edit on 19-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
JW's are often attacked and labelled a ''cult'' with strange beliefs that Jesus is Michael, an angel. Ironically a lot of protestants also believe that Jesus showed up as an angel in the old testament. So whats the difference between the two views?


I've already explained to you that you've fundamentally misunderstood that argument.
Protestants do not claim that Jesus was an angel.
The pre-incarnate Christ was never an angel, but "the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world". The angels were created in Genesis 1:1, Christ already existed at that point. "Through Jesus Christ, all things were made", and so on.

So no, "a lot of protestants" don't believe Jesus was an angel; that view would actually be considered by pretty much every protestant on the planet to be heretical.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 


Being of catholic origin, I wanted to answer that very question with a this is definitely not a teaching I've ever heard of, but since it was suggested that protestants believe it, I kept my mouth shut in case someone out there believed it.

I am aware of plenty of prophesy foretelling the arrival of jesus, but have never seen anything in the bible myself to suggest that he popped in for a visit before he was born.

I an pretty sure events went as told in luke 1




And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. ”


No pre incarnation, no appearing to anyone Beforehand, just mary getting pregnant via the work of the holy spirit.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 

The pre-incarnate Christ was never an angel, but "the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world".
Revelation 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
(2011 NIV)

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
(New American Standard Bible)

The Greek construct leaves an ambiguity so that it can be interpreted either way.
The second way seems to fit the context, where the first way really brings in something that has nothing to do with the point being discussed.

"Through Jesus Christ, all things were made", and so on.
That would be the first part of John 1:3 if you replaced "Jesus" with the Logos.
It never clearly establishes that Jesus was the Logos, or if it meant in verse 14 that the Logos only dwelt among them, meaning Jesus and John the Baptist and the other core disciples.

edit on 21-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 

I am aware of plenty of prophesy foretelling the arrival of jesus, but have never seen anything in the bible myself to suggest that he popped in for a visit before he was born.
In Acts, it says that when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, the rock was Jesus, meaning the thing that kept them alive, that provided them with water.
It is some sort of allegory maybe, or tying in with Jesus' statement at the well in John about living water.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

jmdewey60

"Through Jesus Christ, all things were made", and so on.
That would be the first part of John 1:3 if you replaced "Jesus" with the Logos.
It never clearly establishes that Jesus was the Logos, or if it meant in verse 14 that the Logos only dwelt among them, meaning Jesus and John the Baptist and the other core disciples.

edit on 21-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


...that's not John 1:3. It's Colossians 1:16-17.

As for the quote about the Lamb that was slain - while that's relevant in the immediate context, it's just one of numerous verses that establish the eternal identity of Christ, so more broadly speaking it's neither here nor there.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 

...that's not John 1:3. It's Colossians 1:16-17.

As for the quote about the Lamb that was slain - while that's relevant in the immediate context, it's just one of numerous verses that establish the eternal identity of Christ, so more broadly speaking it's neither here nor there.
Seeing how Jesus is eternal, then his being the "first born" is not literal, and must mean something else, such as "preeminent".
It says "everything in the heavens and earth" so It could not mean that Jesus created the universe.
The examples given of these "created things" are all things political, so it must be about how Jesus is Lord.

The "Lamb who has been slain" I take to mean the church.
It could be that the "being slain" is an indication of their being blameless, or to use the analogy, without blemish, and suitable for an offering, a reference to the persecution of the saints by the beast.
edit on 21-2-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 




I've already explained to you that you've fundamentally misunderstood that argument.

Your argument was basically that "Angel of the Lord" does not mean really an angel, but a "messenger".
Well, angels ARE Messengers of God.



don't assume that the word "angel" necessary means that He was an angel - after all, the word translated in English as 'angel' simply means 'messenger'. THAT would be considered to be the correct interpretation here; that Christ was sent as a messenger.


Well, why shouldn't I assume "angel" refers to an angel like Gabriel or Michael? They too are messengers of God.



Protestants do not claim that Jesus was an angel.

Okay, some protestants have linked Jesus to the angel of Exodus... but I guess they claim the "angel" wasnt really an angel.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Awen24
 




I've already explained to you that you've fundamentally misunderstood that argument.

Your argument was basically that "Angel of the Lord" does not mean really an angel, but a "messenger".
Well, angels ARE Messengers of God.


Not quite. My argument is that 1) Jesus Christ is not an angel, 2) The word translated as "angel" simply means "messenger", and is translated AS "messenger" numerous times in Scripture, and 3) Protestants who argue that Christ appeared in pre-incarnate form, argue that He did so *as* Christ, merely pre-incarnate. They do not argue that He was an angel, and thus would suggest that the word "angel" in the text is thus in reference to His role as messenger in these passages, and not in reference to him being, in bodily form, an angel.




don't assume that the word "angel" necessary means that He was an angel - after all, the word translated in English as 'angel' simply means 'messenger'. THAT would be considered to be the correct interpretation here; that Christ was sent as a messenger.


Well, why shouldn't I assume "angel" refers to an angel like Gabriel or Michael? They too are messengers of God.


...precisely because that word has multiple meanings. Angel = messenger. That's what the word literally means, and it's used in that form in Scripture numerous times. To describe something as an "angel" in Scripture does not always equate to the creature God created in Genesis 1:1. That's an inference you make from context. That being the case, context does not suggest that Christ was one of the angels. Context DOES suggest that if you're going to argue that these appearances are indeed the pre-incarnate Christ, that He is a messenger; not an angel.




Protestants do not claim that Jesus was an angel.

Okay, some protestants have linked Jesus to the angel of Exodus... but I guess they claim the "angel" wasnt really an angel.


That is PRECISELY what they claim... because, as I've mentioned, the word itself affords multiple meanings - both literal, but one meaning a "living creature" type, the other being a messenger. Any messenger.

There's a good breakdown of the topic here (I have no affiliation with this post - just googled and found it - it sums up what I'd argue well).
www.theologyonline.com...
edit on 22-2-2014 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
This is actually quite a good breakdown from Wikipedia, too:



The Bible uses the terms מלאך אלהים (mal'āk̠ 'ĕlōhîm; messenger of God), מלאך יהוה (mal'āk̠ YHWH; messenger of the Lord), בני אלהים (bənē 'ĕlōhîm; sons of God) and הקודשים (haqqôd̠əšîm; the holy ones) to refer to beings traditionally interpreted as angels. Later texts use other terms, such as העליונים (hā'elyônîm; the upper ones).

The term מלאך (mal'āk̠) is also used in the Tanakh; a similar term, ملائكة (malā'ikah), is used in the Qur'an. The Greek and Hebrew words, depending on the context may refer either to a human messenger or a supernatural messenger. The human messenger could possibly be a prophet or priest, such as Malachi, "my messenger", and the Greek superscription that the Book of Malachi was written "by the hand of his messenger" ἀγγέλου angélou. Examples of a supernatural messenger[11] are the "Malak YHWH," who is either a messenger from God,[12] an aspect of God (such as the Logos),[13] or God himself as the messenger (the "theophanic angel.")[11][14]

Scholar Michael D. Coogan notes that it is only in the late books that the terms "come to mean the benevolent semidivine beings familiar from later mythology and art."


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
i think you need to consider the text of the old testament very carefully, as this is what is gumming up the works and creating so many divergent opinions that seem nonsensical when reading the new testament.

for example, look at the story of abraham and sarah.
the three men who appear to abe at his tent, are called men in one spot,
and in various places in the original hebrew, called various names attributed to god,
such as adonai.

now consider one of these men is addressing abraham directly, and explaining that he and his entourage are going to go to sodom and gomorrah after they leave abe's place, in order to determine if the rumors are true about the sinful state of the people there.

god does not need to physically descend to earth to find out if people are behaving badly nor to determine if rumors are true.
the verses there make no sense. but let's set that aside for a moment.

abraham and sarah were renamed with hebrew-egyptian names after hagar became a member of the family and sarah became a mate of the pharaoh of the time. in effect, as a result of a genetic family bond created between abraham and hagar, and between sarah and the pharaoh, abram and sarai became abraham and sarah, hebrew-egyptian names. this part is important, so remember it.

next up we see sarah, who knows by the manner of words abraham is using while addressing the three men that they are not ordinary men. the big hint is when abraham is informed that sarah is going to give birth, to which sarah laughs. now i dunno about you but i hear three heavenly beings, particularly god/jesus/any variation thereof, declare that i'm going to be pregnant, i'm certainly not going to scoff. so why did sarah?

the answer is obvious, these are not angels, nor god, nor gods, these are the pharaoh and his entourage, informing abraham that sarah is going to give birth to an offspring of the pharaoh, thus making abraham and sarah's specific genetic line, worthy of godhood in the pharaonic sense.

in addition, the pharaoh has some beef with the sodomites worship of other deities besides himself or approved egyptian deities, so this is why he had to physically travel there to find out the extent of their law breaking. he was human. he wasn't god in the heavenly sense. he was god in the earthly, socio-political sense. it would be similar (although not entirely) to referring to the king of saudi arabia, as god.

it is my belief that there are sections of the old testament that refer to god, that did not originally mean heavenly father god but an earthly god in the pharaonic sense and that because scholars tend to avoid passages that they can't readily explain without ignoring whole sections of the text, this further obfuscates the meanings of things like is jesus the archangel michael.

for example, do a strongs concordance research on every mention of elohiym or elohim, in the old testament. the word is so wishy washy in its application, you could apply it to some dead relative and have it still be within the examples of usage of the word in the old testament.

edit on 22-2-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 




2) The word translated as "angel" simply means "messenger", and is translated AS "messenger" numerous times in Scripture,


And Angels qualify as messengers of God. Thats their purpose. The Angel of Exodus WAS an angel.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
hey scorpion

can you help me out with a bit of etymology here:

what if ham's name was originally, prefixed with semitic "ha" and that he was named after adam originally. would his name be spelled ha-adam, or ha-dam or h'adam? cause that would make abraHAM's name, abra-ha-adam or abra-ha-dam or abra-h'adam.
considering ham was noah's offspring who repopulated egypt, after which egypt was named (khem=ham)

not saying that ham was the first adam, btw. just tracing etymologies.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
I have come across a strange teaching on certain Christian websites that Jesus made an appearance before his birth to Mary....as an angel. According to some Jesus was ''the angel of The Lord'' who was the fierce, unforgiving angel of exodus, the same angel who blessed Hagar and appeared to Jacob in a dream and to Moses as the fire on the bush. The reasoning used to conclude that the ''angel of The Lord'' was Jesus is that the angel had ''the Name of God'' in him and did things that only God does - bless and cause to multiply(Hagar) and declare ''I am God'' (Jacob + Moses). It appears that since Christians believe Jesus is the ''son of God'' and Jesus said no man has seen the Father, some Christians have concluded that this angel had to have been Jesus, who according to trinitarians, is God-the son. Going by the Old Testaments premise of monotheism, I believe the angel was a mouthpiece through which God was speaking. The angel would have been a visible represntation of the divine. In the NT, Jesus never claimed to be this angel, yet some Christians claim that this powerful angel was a ''pre-incarnate'' Jesus. This idea of Jesus being an angel before his birth is identical to the Jehovahs witnesses claim that Jesus was actually the archangel Michael. And ironically, this JW teaching is dismissed by many Christians as heretical. Thoughts on this?
edit on 17-2-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


I do not know where you stand as far as the concept of the trinity being Biblical, but before Jesus became Jesus he was the Word.

John1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


The Word became Flesh, which is Jesus. Not only does this show the concept of the trinity being Biblical, but if Jesus is God in Human Form there would be no reason to feel as though the Angel of The Lord is referencing Jesus.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join