Kiemelt bejegyzés

1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty

The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty Who is the real God? A tri nity of persons (The Trinity) or just one person, the F at h...

Saturday, 21 February 2015

132. The "archangel Christology" an "Angel Christology"? No!


The "archangel Christology" an "Angel Christology"? No!  

Peace and grace for all the people who want's the peace and grace of God and his Son,

The "archangel Christology" an "Angel Christology"? No. The archangel is not "an angel". In Hebrew (hasar hagadol, Daniel 12,1) means "great prince", a "prince" (sar) like in Isaiah 9:6 "sar shalom". He is between God and angels.
In the heaven exist three ranks: God, the archangel and the angels.

 

The Protestants of Geneva, Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses weren't the first to reason that Jesus is Michael the Archangel:
"In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels of God's inner council, and who is regularly described as "most venerable", "holy", and "glorious". This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas (was the brother of the Bishop of Rome) saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael. Both, for example, are invested with supreme power over the people of God; both pronounce judgment on the faithful; and both hand sinners over to the angel of repentance to reform them. ... The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. There is evidence also, as we observed in the preceding paragraph, of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel; here the influence of Jewish angelology is discernible." - Early Christian Doctrines, by JND Kelly, pp 94, 95
In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, John A. Lees says:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn B{ible} D{ictionary}." (1930, Vol. III), p. 2048.
"ARCHANGEL. This word is only twice used in the Bible, 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9. In the last passage it is applied to Michael, who, in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish Nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of an angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." - Inter-National Bible Dictionary, published by Logos International, Plainfield, New Jersey, p. 35.
John Wesley's Note on the Whole Bible:
Daniel Chapter 10
5. A certain man; Very probably Christ, who appeared to Daniel in royal and priestly robes, and in so great brightness and majesty.
13. Withstood me; God suffered the wicked counsels of Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael; Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained; To counter-work their designs against the people of God
21. Michael; Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.
C. H. Spurgeon from "Mornings and Evenings":
"To whom do we owe all this? Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us, for through Him we are made to sit in heavenly places far above principalities and powers. He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows."


There is no other archangel in heaven, just Michael. Gabriel is not an archangel, he is an angel. And other names we don't have for any so called archangels "Raphael and Co" were invented.

I think 80-90% of JW's doctrine (teachings) is a compilation or adaptation of other groups beliefs. Pastor CT Russell wrote around 1900' that they don't have any "new" doctrine. So, the identification of Michael as Jesus is not a "new" Bible Student or JW's teaching. This is a very ancient belief, as Adolf Harnack states in his "History of Dogma". He dates back to the second century AD, but an ancient time scholar named Karim Shahrastani in his book "The Book of Sects and Creeds" stated that this belief existed with 300 years before Arius, so in the first century AD. In his book Shahrastani see a link between this group and Arius, and states that Arius borrowed this doctrine from that period of time. The reason behind this identification is this: If the Son of God have a pre-human existence He have a pre-human name also. You know the Proverbs 30:“I am weary, God,

but I can prevail.a

2Surely I am only a brute, not a man;

I do not have human understanding.

3I have not learned wisdom,

nor have I attained to the knowledge of the Holy One.

4Who has gone up to heaven and come down?

Whose hands have gathered up the wind?

Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is his name, and what is the name of his son?

Surely you know!


 "This great tree that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains, and all the earth, is the law of God that was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God, proclaimed to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation, and have believed upon Him. And the great and glorious angel Michael is he who has authority over this people, and governs them; for this is he who gave them the law into the hearts of believers: he accordingly superintends them to whom he gave it, to see if they have kept the same."
"The Pastor of Hermas"
http://waitingforthefinaltest.blogspot.ro/.../article-1.html


If we cut the idea of Michael as Jesus we cut also the whole activity of the Son of God from the Old Testament. And I think this is what the socinian unitarians want from us to accept, to could sustain better their views against the Son of God pre-human existence. As I stated, if the Son of God have a pre-human existence, He have a pre-human name also. Logic: PRE-HUMAN EXISTENCE = PRE-HUMAN NAME. The worlds like "logos" "light" etc. are not names, but descriptive titles aka "nicknames". 

1. The snowball Trinity versus the Father Almighty
2. He is "Yehowah": God's holy name
3. The story of The rich man and the beggar Lazarus: A fake, a literal history or a parable?
See why is a fake...
Try with Google Translate from Romanian

No comments:

Post a Comment