Only ONE archangel

[8thdaypriest]

The word "archangel" (meaning - chief of angels) is found in only two verses.

Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (NKJ)

1 Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first." (NRS)

[Some translations say "an" archangel's call, but the word "an" or "the" is an added word.]

Upon hearing "archangel's call" the dead rise.  John 5:25 says "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God".  Put these two verses together.

John 5:25 "Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." (NRS)

The Son of God IS the chief of angels.  He will call forth the dead.  The name of God's son IS Michael, which means "like unto God".  The name seems appropriate, considering that He was begotten in the express image of God His Father. 

Revelation 12:7 "And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, (Rev 12:7 NRS)

Michael leads the angels forces of Heaven.  He is "commander of the LORD's hosts.  Which means that Michael appeared to Joshua just after Israel crossed over Jordan.  In that encounter, Joshua is told to remove his shoes, for He is standing on holy ground (Joshua 5:14-16).  No mere created angel could render the ground holy.  Only the presence of deity could do that.  

But what about Daniel 10:13?

Daniel 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (NRS)

In most translations Michael is called "one of the chief princes".  The word translated as "one" is the word 'echad (Strong's #0259), which can also mean "first". 

So Michael is the "first" and is the "arch" (chief) of the angels (messengers). 

Who is God's chief messenger?  His own Son - of course.  He is called "the word of God".  All through the OT He was known as "the Angel of the LORD". 

When "the Angel of the LORD speaks" as the LORD. 

    Genesis 22:1-18  “But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ And He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son your only son, from Me.’”

        The Angel of the LORD speaks as Yehovah, saying, “You have not withheld your son . . . from Me.” 

There is only ONE Archangel.  He is the Father's "chief messenger".  He is Michael the Son of God. 

 

 

[Gustave]

Jewish religious beliefs required that there be more than one arch-angel & given you quoted Daniel 10:13 which states Michael was one of other "Chief Princes" [ that's a plural ] you would know that there wasn't only one archangel.

If that isn't enough, Ellen White, in scores of places, affirmed that MULTIPLE archangels exist - all being flesh hominids with all the organs, members & parts of a perfect man.

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Jewish religious beliefs required that there be more than one arch-angel & given you quoted Daniel 10:13 which states Michael was one of other "Chief Princes" [ that's a plural ] you would know that there wasn't only one archangel.

If that isn't enough, Ellen White, in scores of places, affirmed that MULTIPLE archangels exist - all being flesh hominids with all the organs, members & parts of a perfect man.

Gustave,

You'll have to show me the statements.  I don't recall ever seeing such from Mrs. White as you claim.  Keep in mind that "prince" and "archangel" are not necessarily the same thing, so having more than one prince does nothing to establish that there must also be more than one archangel.  The Bible uses "the archangel," not "one of the archangels" to speak of Michael.

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Gustave,

You'll have to show me the statements.  I don't recall ever seeing such from Mrs. White as you claim.  Keep in mind that "prince" and "archangel" are not necessarily the same thing, so having more than one prince does nothing to establish that there must also be more than one archangel.  The Bible uses "the archangel," not "one of the archangels" to speak of Michael.

 

Evidently Lucifer was an archangel.

Ellen White, Seventh Day Adventist Signs of the Times Sept 14 1882
Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven. There was not the shadow of justification or excuse for disaffection; but envy and jealousy, once cherished, gained a power that paralyzed reason and destroyed honor and loyalty. As the result, Satan and all his sympathizers were cast out of Heaven.

 

There are "other" archangels.

Ellen White
Listen to their voices as they sing loud hosannas and as they wave the palm branches of victory. Rich music fills heaven as their voices sing forth these words: "Worthy, worthy is the Lamb that was slain and rose again forevermore. Salvation unto our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." And the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph, echo back the refrain of that joyous, triumphant song saying, "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever" (Rev. 7:12). {Mar 329.3}

 

The following is from the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Training School.

Missionary Special Edition / Seventh Day Adventist Bible Training School
The Son of God was rich and mighty and blessed. But when he would
win the hearts of proud, selfish, and passionate men, he did not put on his robes of
glory and surround himself with angels and archangels and the whole company of
heaven.

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/BTS/BTS19110701-V10-02__C.pdf#view=fit

 

There are many places where Ellen affirms multiple archangels. And as far as there being more than one - she's right about that.

 

Remember:

Ellen White, Review and Herald, Jan 14, 1909
We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest ANGEL in heaven


 

 

[B/W Photodude]

22 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Daniel 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (NRS)

Interesting person that I think about from time to time (another "riddle me this" moment!). Gabriel, I believe, was the speaker and states this prince of the kingdom of Persia were somehow deadlocked for 21 days and making no progress. Then Michael had to come to his rescue.

So, who is the prince of the kingdom of Persia and why did Michael wait for 21 days! (I believe that the prince of the kingdom of Persia was Lucifer, but obviously have no proof!)

[Gustave]

B/W,

You're right,

Daniel started his "FAST" & was into it '3 full weeks' & on the 24th day of the month sees the angel.

The angel tells Daniel from the very start of the fast he wanted to come see him - but the patron demon of Persia ( possibly Lucifer ) detained HIM for 21 days.

The angel proceeds to tell Daniel that Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help him and THEY, FOR OVER 3 DAYS, weakened the demon enough.

So that Michael could keep him restrained by himself - thus giving Daniel's angel his leave so he could deliver the prophecy to Daniel.

The angel delivers the prophecy to Daniel and says he's headed back to continue fighting with the patron demon of Persia.

 

Michael, you can bet your bottom dollar, ISN'T Christ - Christ wouldn't need "help" to refrain a demon for a second - the text says it took 4 days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

The angel proceeds to tell Daniel that Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help him and THEY, FOR OVER 3 DAYS, weakened the demon enough.

Michael, you can bet your bottom dollar, ISN'T Christ - Christ wouldn't need "help" to refrain a demon for a second - the text says it took 4 days.

I would differ for you in that Michael was not also Jesus. And the fact that it took so long is we have no idea what was happening during the time of this confrontation with Lucifer. The fact that it took so long and it happens in other places (Such as Jacob's night of wrestling with the angel) says that God will take His time in a "discussion" to do it right.

Even in pre-Jesus times in Israel, Michael was referred to as divine. And writings did not often use His name as the name Jehovah was often not used in the English (KJV, for one), but LORD was substituted. In Hebrew writings HaShem is used instead of Jehovah in liturgy and other writings. Even when Scripture is read and Jehovah is spelled out, it will be read as HaShem. Likewise, in the first chapter of John, "the Word" was used instead of saying/reading the name of the divine Michael.

The fact that Michael is referred to as an archangel is also not an evidence that he is indeed an angel and not God. There are multiple references where angels coming to a man refused to allow them to bow and worship them and other instances where it was permitted. This is one of the ways they can be differentiated. Will they allow someone to worship them or not? God Himself is often not so taken with Himself as to refuse to identify with His creations. Jesus is referred to Michael as an archangel, but even as a human He takes the title of "Son of Man." God often will take the role of servant for His creations and even every detectable moment of time the Father is servant to His creation by maintaining their very existence.  Consider the very meaning of the name of Michael.

12 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for
the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never
was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people
shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

So, here we see Michael referred to as the Great Prince. Angels cannot be princes as that assumes they are inline to be the King! (I know that the people of God are referred to as kings and priests, because they are said to be sharing the throne of God in the world to come. How incredible is that?!) There are other places in Scripture where Jesus is referred to as standing for His people such as Stephen when he immediately prior to when he was stoned where he told of seeing Jesus standing at the side of His Father's side as recorded in Acts 7

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and
saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said,
Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand
of God.

So, even God in the Son will stand in honor of those who He loves in their difficult times.

Revelation 12:7-9 - 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought
against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not;
neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was
cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the
whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with
him.

The Great Controversy has always been called the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. It began as a conflict between the two of them when Lucifer coveted the honor and position of Jesus in Heaven. SO, we see in Revelation that the two "combatants" are Michael and Satan. 

Some where I have a book that lists all the names that Jesus is referred to throughout Scripture. The list runs into the hundreds because it had one for every day of the year.

[Gustave]

At the end of the day Michael is classified as being a chief prince among OTHER chief princes.

Ellen White claimed "Lucifer was, NEXT TO CHRIST, the highest ANGEL" - also said he was an "archangel".

Jehovah's Witnesses double-down on this & I believe that the christadelphians & world wide church of God 7th day do as well - these groups are non-Trinitarian are they not?

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

B/W,

You're right,

Daniel started his "FAST" & was into it '3 full weeks' & on the 24th day of the month sees the angel.

The angel tells Daniel from the very start of the fast he wanted to come see him - but the patron demon of Persia ( possibly Lucifer ) detained HIM for 21 days.

The angel proceeds to tell Daniel that Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help him and THEY, FOR OVER 3 DAYS, weakened the demon enough.

So that Michael could keep him restrained by himself - thus giving Daniel's angel his leave so he could deliver the prophecy to Daniel.

The angel delivers the prophecy to Daniel and says he's headed back to continue fighting with the patron demon of Persia.

 

The evil angels are called princes (as in "prince of Persia") and the angels loyal to God are called "princes".  The word translated as "prince" can mean captain or ruler.  Satan is call "the prince of this world" - meaning the RULER of this world.  He is also called "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph 2:2).  So the title "prince" does not necessarily designate someone in line to inherit the throne, by virtue of descent. 

But Michael is "FIRST OF the chief princes".  This is a very acceptable translation, rather than "ONE OF" - implying that Michael was just one of several equals.  He was/is not.  He is COMMANDER of the Lord's hosts.  His presence renders the ground "holy".  He accepts worship.  Other angels do not.   

Interesting that the Michael did NOT USE full divine power, but rather angel power to restrain "the prince of Persia".   That fits with His using only power that was available to humans, during His incarnation as a man.  He told his followers, "the Father who lives in me, does the works" (Jn 14:10). 

This agrees with my belief that before He incarnated to represent God the Father to humankind, He had the form of an angel to represent the Father to angels.  The Son of God acted as the agent of His Father, to created all things (including angels) and became the agent of His Father to represent His Father - in mediation, in communication, in protection (of the faithful), and in redemption.

I am not a Trinitarian.  I believe in God our Father, and "the LORD Jesus Christ".  

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (NRS)

I am not SDA and I do not look to Ellen White for infallible interpretation of Scripture.  I read her as I would any other commentary.

[JoeMo]

9 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I am not a Trinitarian.  I believe in God our Father, and "the LORD Jesus Christ".

I am not SDA and I do not look to Ellen White for infallible interpretation of Scripture.  I read her as I would any other commentary.

I'm the same way.

 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”  “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” (Josh 5:13 - 14)  I believe this "man" was Jesus Christ.

The Bible refers to "the angel of the Lord" 71 times.  In almost all instances, in context, this being is actually Yahweh in physical form (i.e., the being who became Jesus).

I still hold out that there could be other "archangels" in heaven For example, Psalm 82 states:

 

Elohim [God] stands in the divine assembly;
there with the elohim [judges], he judges:
 “How long will you go on judging unfairly,
favoring the wicked? (Selah)3 
Give justice to the weak and fatherless!
Uphold the rights of the wretched and poor!
 Rescue the destitute and needy;
deliver them from the power of the wicked!”⁵ They don’t know, they don’t understand,
they wander about in darkness;
meanwhile, all the foundations of the earth
are being undermined.
“My decree is: ‘You are elohim [gods, judges],
sons of the Most High all of you.

Nevertheless, you will die like mortals;
like any prince, you will fall.’”

 

Obviously "elohim refers to "God; or is it "gods"?  In the first verse, it says that "Elohim will judge elohim. Certainly the verse is not saying that God is judging the other member(s) of the Godhead - He is judging evil "gods" especially since He condemns them to die like men.  Were baal or satan or dagon evil "elohim"?  Could "elohim" be archangels?

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

The Bible refers to "the angel of the Lord" 71 times.  In almost all instances, in context, this being is actually Yahweh in physical form (i.e., the being who became Jesus).

 

Matthew 1,20: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

You wouldn't say the angel of the Lord was Christ in the above text, would you?

Consider the following.

Hebrews 1,1: In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 

 

Strong's: πολυτρόπως polytrópōs, pol-oot-rop'-oce; adverb from a compound of G4183 and G5158; in many ways, i.e. variously as to method or form:—in divers manners.

Unless you're prepared to argue Adoptionism as a valid position Hebrews 1,1 precludes the possibility of the pre-incarnate Christ being the angel of the Lord simply because Christ is "the Eternal Son" and the text wouldn't say what it does IF "The Son" was who was speaking to the fathers by the prophets, no?

[JoeMo]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Unless you're prepared to argue Adoptionism as a valid position Hebrews 1,1 precludes the possibility of the pre-incarnate Christ being the angel of the Lord simply because Christ is "the Eternal Son" and the text wouldn't say what it does IF "The Son" was who was speaking to the fathers by the prophets, no?

I dunno.  I think God can do anything He wants, including being in 2 places (Mary's womb and Joseph's dream) at the same time.  Paul says the rock in the wilderness of the Israelite exodus was Christ (who is the exact image (physical presence) of the Father.  Jesus Himself says that before Abraham was, I AM.  Jesus was in the OT and will be at the Second Coming the Commander of the Lord's army.

[Gustave]

According to Scripture God indeed can do anything He wants - with the exception of sinning.

Angels however CAN ( and some certainly did ) "sin".

Ellen White set the foundational (and vital) seventh-day Adventist teaching that Christ "could have sinned" with a sledge hammer.

Because Christ, prior to actually becoming Christ, WAS Michael the archangel.

It's really quite simple.

 

Here is a hypothetical question for you: 

LET's say that God was taking a tour of the universe and unfortunately got to close to a star that went Super-Nova and eternally ceased to exist on account of the accident. What would you say about that?

I'll reserve my answer after you answer the above.

 

 

 

 

[JoeMo]

1 minute ago, Gustave said:

Here is a hypothetical question for you: 

LET's say that God was taking a tour of the universe and unfortunately got to close to a star that went Super-Nova and eternally ceased to exist on account of the accident. What would you say about that?

I'll reserve my answer after you answer the above.

Not an answerable question because the scenario in your hypothesis is not plausible.  God cannot cease to exist; and even if He could, he would have pre-knowledge of the situation and prevent the supernova.

[Gustave]

28 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Not an answerable question because the scenario in your hypothesis is not plausible.  God cannot cease to exist; and even if He could, he would have pre-knowledge of the situation and prevent the supernova.

Exactly.

Matthew 1,21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

There are literally more than 100 equally explicit Scriptures that say the same thing; i.e. God Himself would come and WOULD SAVE.

How could, given the weight of Biblical Evidence, one conclude that Christ 'could have sinned' and lost his eternal salvation & had that happened 'God' would have annihilated Christ to make him be as if he never was?

An angel however could loose their eternal salvation.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

How could, given the weight of Biblical Evidence, one conclude that Christ 'could have sinned' and lost his eternal salvation & had that happened 'God' would have annihilated Christ to make him be as if he never was?

Just my opinion - If it would have been "impossible" for Christ to sin, couldn't satan call "foul"?  The very fact that Christ was temped in all ways yet was without sin (Heb. 4:15) tells me that it was possible for Christ to sin.  How can something be a temptation if we are totally immune to falling for the temptation?  The fact that God sent His Son" in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3) tells me that Christ could have sinned (but He didn't), or else He would have been sent in the likeness of sinless flesh.  

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

Matthew 1,20: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

You wouldn't say the angel of the Lord was Christ in the above text, would you?

Consider the following.

Hebrews 1,1: In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 

 

Strong's: πολυτρόπως polytrópōs, pol-oot-rop'-oce; adverb from a compound of G4183 and G5158; in many ways, i.e. variously as to method or form:—in divers manners.

Unless you're prepared to argue Adoptionism as a valid position Hebrews 1,1 precludes the possibility of the pre-incarnate Christ being the angel of the Lord simply because Christ is "the Eternal Son" and the text wouldn't say what it does IF "The Son" was who was speaking to the fathers by the prophets, no?

I looked at 10 or so translations of Matthew 1:20.  Every one rendered the words "an angel of the Lord" NOT "the angel of the LORD".  "An angel" could be any one of the angels loyal to the Father, NOT necessarily the pre-incarnate Christ. 

The angel Gabriel was sent by God to Mary before she conceived.  Gabriel is "an angel of the LORD".  In verse 24 the text continues saying that Joseph "did as the angel of the LORD commanded him".  The word "the" is an added word to help our English.  It means that Joseph did as the angel who appeared to him commanded. 

It WAS a dream.  God can portray anything in a dream, even something that does not presently exist.  Right?  Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me" (Jn 6:44).  So God the Father was working by His spirit on the earth WHILE Jesus was a human (even a fetal one). 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Matthew 1,21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

There are literally more than 100 equally explicit Scriptures that say the same thing; i.e. God Himself would come and WOULD SAVE.

How could, given the weight of Biblical Evidence, one conclude that Christ 'could have sinned' and lost his eternal salvation & had that happened 'God' would have annihilated Christ to make him be as if he never was?

An angel however could loose their eternal salvation.

The Son of God is described as emptying Himself, in order to incarnate with the "nature of Abraham".  Of what did He emptying Himself? 

Philippians 2:7-8 “rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death-- even death on a cross! (NIV)

"made Himself nothing" is translated in other versions as "emptied Himself".

Hebrews 2:16 “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (KJV).

    Hebrews 2:9 “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Christ took the nature of Abraham.  Abraham was flesh.  Flesh is "dust".  It is MORTAL.  It can die.

Angels cannot die physically.  They can only be destroyed in "the lake of fire" - which is spirit death.  Jesus became human, so that He could be "obedient unto death" AND then be resurrected by His Father. 

There is no resurrected from "the lake of fire".

I believe He emptied Himself of omnipotence, omniscience, and the power to be in all places by His spirit (omnipresence).  In other words He "emptied Himself" of His divine powers.  He must overcome AS A MAN, in order to recover the dominion of earth FOR MANKIND.  

    Psalm 115:16 “The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.” (NIV)

        God gave this earth to mankind. God would not take back His “gift”.  It belonged to mankind, to enjoy with God’s blessing, or to destroy - without Him.

The promise of dominion for mankind (made in Eden) was conditional, upon perfect loyalty (therefore perfect obedience).  Mankind broke that covenant.  To recover that dominion, for mankind, God needed a PERFECT MAN.  The Son of God fulfilled every requirement.  He was perfectly obedient and faithful to covenant, therefore God can give to Him dominion over all things.  This is what happens in Daniel 7.

The first Adam lost the dominion - because of disobedience.

The “last Adam” would recover the dominion FOR MANKIND - by perfect obedience - AS A MAN.

Jesus IS called "the last Adam" (I Cor 15:45).

Satan took over dominion of earth. when God could no longer legally protect Adam/Eve.  God allowed Satan to do this, but He protects those who cry out to Him, and seek His forgiveness.  One day soon, the dominion will be given to Christ Jesus.  With the dominion, comes the right to judge, which is why "all judgment has been committed to the Son". 

Daniel 7:13-14  “I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!  He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him.  Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.”

There is a study on my website titled "DOMINION".   http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/11-DOMINION.pdf

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Matthew 1,21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

There are literally more than 100 equally explicit Scriptures that say the same thing; i.e. God Himself would come and WOULD SAVE.

How could, given the weight of Biblical Evidence, one conclude that Christ 'could have sinned' and lost his eternal salvation & had that happened 'God' would have annihilated Christ to make him be as if he never was?

An angel however could loose their eternal salvation.

Because the prophecies said that God would come to us, does NOT mean the One who had existed "in the express image of God" would appear at His incarnation in "the glory of His Father".  That doesn't happen until the glorious return.  When Christ ascended and was "glorified" AFTER His resurrection, His "God powers" were returned to Him.  Sort of a reverse incarnation, if you will.  When He appeared to John, He had a very glorious appearance. 

Jesus came as flesh and blood.  After the cross, Jesus was DEAD.  He would have stayed DEAD, had not His Father resurrected Him.  If He had sinned before dying, God the Father would simply have left Him DEAD. 

Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,”

    Acts 3:15 “ ... and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” (Acts 4:10)

    Ephesians 1:17-20 “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, ... according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,”

And if Jesus did NOT REALLY DIE, then you and I have no salvation!  If only His human part died, then HE did not die. 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I looked at 10 or so translations of Matthew 1:20.  Every one rendered the words "an angel of the Lord" NOT "the angel of the LORD".  "An angel" could be any one of the angels loyal to the Father, NOT necessarily the pre-incarnate Christ. 

The angel Gabriel was sent by God to Mary before she conceived.  Gabriel is "an angel of the LORD".  In verse 24 the text continues saying that Joseph "did as the angel of the LORD commanded him".  The word "the" is an added word to help our English.  It means that Joseph did as the angel who appeared to him commanded. 

It WAS a dream.  God can portray anything in a dream, even something that does not presently exist.  Right?  Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me" (Jn 6:44).  So God the Father was working by His spirit on the earth WHILE Jesus was a human (even a fetal one). 

KJV = "THE angel of the Lord"

Douay-Reims = "THE angel of the Lord"

KJ21 = "THE angel of the Lord"

BRG = "THE angel of the Lord"

Geneva Bible = "THE angel of the Lord"

JUB = "THE angel of the Lord"

AKJV = "THE angel of the Lord"

NABRE = "THE angel of the Lord"

 

Your commentary on Philippians 2:7-8 is straight out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.

St. John Chrysostom's commentary sounds more logical & Biblically sound.

"Lastly, What shall we say against Arius, who asserts the Son is of a different substance? Tell me now, what means, “He took the form of a servant”? It means, He became man. Wherefore “being in the form of God,” He was God. For one “form” and another “form” is named; if the one be true, the other is also. “The form of a servant” means, Man by nature, wherefore “the form of God” means, God by nature. And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as Jn also doth, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he saith, “He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God.” Now what is their wise reasoning? Nay, say they, he proves the very contrary; for he says, that, “being in the form of God, He seized not equality with God.” How if He were God, how was He able “to seize upon it”? and is not this without meaning? Who would say that one, being a man, seized not on being a man? for how would any one seize on that which he is? No, say they, but he means that being a little God, He seized not upon being equal to the great God, Who was greater than He. Is there a great and a little God? And do ye bring in the doctrines of the Greeks upon those of the Church? With them there is a great and a little God. If it be so with you, I know not. For you will find it nowhere in the Scriptures: there you will find a great God throughout, a little one nowhere. If He were little, how would he also be God? If man is not little and great, but one nature, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, how can there be a little God and a great one?"

& specifically about the understanding you suggested applied.

"These are absurdities and trifles! Scripture says, He “emptied Himself.” How did He empty Himself? tell me. What was His emptying? what His humiliation? was it because He wrought wonders? This both Paul and Peter did, so that this was not peculiar to the Son. What then means, “Being made in the likeness of men”? He had many things belonging to us, and many He had not; for instance, He was not born of wedlock. He did no sin. These things had He which no man has. He was not what he seemed only, but He was God also; He seemed to be a man, but He was not like the mass of men. For He was like them in flesh. He means then, that He was not a mere man. Wherefore he says, “in the likeness of men.” For we indeed are soul and body, but He was God, and soul and body, wherefore he says, “in the likeness.” For lest when you hear that He emptied Himself, you should think that some change, and degeneracy, and loss is here; he says, whilst He remained what He was, He took that which He was not, and being made flesh He remained God, in that He was the Word. (Jn 1,14).
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm

 

 

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

Your commentary on Philippians 2:7-8 is straight out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.

Not trying to speak for Rachel; but JW's do NOT believe Christ was/is God.  Trust me; Rachel has no doubts that Christ is God.  The only thing that I (and maybe she) disagrees with you one is the nature of the pre-incarnate Christ - who was and continues to be the physical manifestation of Yahweh.

[8thdaypriest]

JWs do not worship Christ. 

We are to WORSHIP only God.  I think of the word God as generic - like human.  It's not a name.  It's a type.  God means divine being, as opposed to human being, or animal, etc etc.  

The Son of God INHERITED the divine nature of His Father.  Therefore the Son was a divine being, prior to His incarnation.  When He incarnated, He gave up His God nature, and took human nature.  And human nature after it had been degraded for 4000 years. 

He overcame evil in the same way that you and I are to overcome - by the indwelling of the divine.  For Christ, that meant the indwelling of His divine Father (who IS spirit according to John 4). 

Because He was the SON, He obeys His Father.  The Father is "above all", and "greater than all".  This is why Christ instructed His disciples to pray TO the Father, in the name of the Son. 

Scripture is clear that the Son of God is to be worshiped. 

Philippians  2:10-11  “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”  (Notice that only two divine Beings are worshiped.)

    Hebrews 1:6  “But when He again brings the first born into the world, He [God the Father] says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’”

Luke 24:51-52   “Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven.  And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy,”

    Revelation  5:13 “And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: “Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

    (Two divine beings are worshiped here.)

[8thdaypriest]

    Exodus 20:3-6  “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”  “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.”

   

I believe that the earth was cut off from God the Father by the sin of Adam.  The Son then became the mediator - the representative of His Father to our world.  As such, the Son of God became God of this world - Yahweh to Israel.  He was worshiped as Yahweh.  He spoke and wrote the Ten Commandments. He appeared to the 70 Elders of Israel on Mount Sinai.  He appeared to Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, and spoke to Moses from the burning bush. 

His taking this role of Mediator was predicated upon His promise to submit Himself to the temptations of Satan, while in human form and nature.

Only when the Son incarnated, was the rupture between mankind and God the Father partly closed.  The Spirit of the Father was restored to earth, when the Son became a man.  Before the incarnation, only the Son of God, along with the angels, served and protected those of humankind who called on the "name of the LORD".   

 

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

“He thought it not a thing to seize, to be equal with God.”

I believe this means that the Son (because He was a son) honored His Father, and did not seek to share His throne equally, but rather honored the Father as above himself.  This even though the Son existed "in the express image of God".  An express image is AN EXACT COPY.  And this would mean that the Son was equal in nature and power.  He did not seek to claim equal authority, even though He was equal in all other respects.

When the war with Satan is finally finished:
NRS  1 Corinthians 15:24 "Then comes the end, when he [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God [the Father] has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one [God the Father] who put all things in subjection under him [Christ]. 28 When all things are subjected to him [Christ], then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. 

Words in brackets are mine.

So the authority of God the Father is ABOVE that of His Son - forever.  God the Father is above ALL. 

"The HEAD of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3).  This WHY the Father is continually called "the God of Christ" or "His God and Father" through the NT. 

 

Lucifer - on the other hand - DID seek to be equal with God.  More than that, he has sought to displace God - by deception, by manipulation, and by force. 

[phkrause]

Here's an interesting article I came across: The 7 Archangels and Their Meanings

http://www.beliefnet.com/inspiration/angels/galleries/the-7-archangels-and-their-meanings.aspx?

I'm curious as to where they got all these names from? The only one's I know are Michael and Gabriel!! The others I'm not sure about! I looked them up in the SDABC, but couldn't find anything!

Here's what Pastor Batchelor has to say about the Archangel Michael. You need to go to about the 7:50 mark, give or take about a few seconds!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hWYTAMt4qI