23 replies to this topic

[Colter]

Ok people, I've turned over a new leaf. I agreed with the forums request to stop promoting that book, I can't even remember the name, I think it was "Cat In The Hat" or something. Anyway I want the Christidelphians to explain who they think Michael is.


Revelation 12:7-9
7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9And 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.

So this Michael and (his) angels can be found in the bible and was revealed 50 years after Jesus ascended to the right hand of the father. John was given this revelation while in exile on Patmos.

So someone tell me how this Michael and (his) angels will able to defeat the dragon unless he was/is none other than Jesus?

* Who is Michael if he is not Jesus, and if he isn't how does he have the power to cast out the serpant (Satan)?

* If Micheal is not Jesus why does he have angels at his command?

* How does Satan who is not a personality but an advisary ( or a smart animal depending on who your talking to), how does this Satan that is refered to as "him" have angels at his disposal?

See, not one mention of Cat and the hat.

[Fortigurn]

Michael is an archangel, as it says. He already appears in Daniel, long before Revelation. In chapter 12 of Revelation he fights no literal war in heaven - it's symbolic of God's victory over pagan Rome.

[Fortigurn]

Colter, on Jun 2 2005, 01:47 AM, said:

So someone tell me how this Michael and (his) angels will able to defeat the dragon unless he was/is none other than Jesus?

He's an archangel with an army of angels. What more do you need?

Quote

* Who is Michael if he is not Jesus, and if he isn't how does he have the power to cast out the serpant (Satan)?

He's an archangel, as it says. With an army of angels.

Quote

* If Micheal is not Jesus why does he have angels at his command?

He's an archangel, as it says.

Quote

* How does Satan who is not a personality but an advisary ( or a smart animal depending on who your talking to), how does this Satan that is refered to as "him" have angels at his disposal?

It's a representation of the forces of pagan Rome. Please start with Daniel 7.

[Flappie]

So not Constantine?

[Adanac]

He's the man child.

[Gileade]

[Adanac]

What?

[Colter]

I read Daniel 7 and saw a lot of familiar names such as Gabriel, The Most Highs, and prince Michael. It would seem that they attempted to reveal some of the same things that they tried to reveal to John about Michael and the Most Highs.

REV still reveals a Satan personality, refers to it as (him) and states that he had angels that were on his side.

I think both REV and Daniel were referring to the same event, the Incarnation of Michael as Jesus during which time he overcame Satan.

[Fortigurn]

Flappie, on Jun 2 2005, 03:58 AM, said:

So not Constantine?

No.

[Fortigurn]

Colter, on Jun 2 2005, 07:11 AM, said:

I think both REV and Daniel were referring to the same event, the Incarnation of Michael as Jesus during which time he overcame Satan.

John says that his revelation concerned things in his own future, not in his past.

[luke]

Colter, on Jun 1 2005, 06:47 PM, said:

Ok people, I've turned over a new leaf. I agreed with the forums request to stop promoting that book, I can't even remember the name, I think it was "Cat In The Hat" or something.

[Colter]

Fortigurn, on Jun 1 2005, 11:26 PM, said:

Colter, on Jun 2 2005, 07:11 AM, said:

I think both REV and Daniel were referring to the same event, the Incarnation of Michael as Jesus during which time he overcame Satan.

John says that his revelation concerned things in his own future, not in his past.

I'm trying to follow, so then Daniel's dream and visitation by Gabriel was reveling some events that were (after John) chronologically such as the fall of pagan Rome?

Was the "Michael battling the dragon" after Johns time or a reference to Daniel's dream revelation?

Edited by Colter, 02 June 2005 - 12:11 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Colter, on Jun 2 2005, 08:10 AM, said:

Fortigurn, on Jun 1 2005, 11:26 PM, said:

Colter, on Jun 2 2005, 07:11 AM, said:

I think both REV and Daniel were referring to the same event, the Incarnation of Michael as Jesus during which time he overcame Satan.

John says that his revelation concerned things in his own future, not in his past.

I'm trying to follow, so then Daniel's dream and visitation by Gabriel was reveling some events that were (after John) chronologically such as the fall of pagan Rome?

I don't see Gabriel anywhere in Daniel but chapters 8 and 9, neither of which are speaking of events after John's life.

Quote

Was the "Michael battling the dragon" after Johns time or a reference to Daniel's dream revelation?

It's a reference to an event after John's time. It contains a reference to a beast which appears in Daniel 7.

[Colter]

Quote

It's a reference to an event after John's time. It contains a reference to a beast which appears in Daniel 7.

I think we've gone around the block to get across the street. As was my original presentation, the BOR refers to Michael as having angels and as being powerful enough to cast Satan down as well as Satans angels that went into rebellion with him.

I think Marcia was correct when he used the word "reductionism" in describing how some of the posters on this board try to rationalize away Satan or depersonalize him.

The BOR positively identifies him as a personality and that he had angels on his side. Weather the event depicted by John was in the past or in the present is of no consequence to the facts of the narrative.

Of even greater interest is the power of this "Michael" which is referred to as an "archangel" having angels under his command. If he has the authority to cast out Satan then he is much more than an archangel.

I here all the time in Christian circles how a group of people can start with an Idea then go to the Bible with all of it's diversity and find ways to justify their position often by stretching concepts a little here and a little there.

[Colter]

scooter, on Jun 4 2005, 11:44 AM, said:

The more I read comments from many here, the more I am convinced that many dont even understand what they have read, either that or they place their own meaning behind all of it. The Bible is quite plain and dosent need mans ideas placed on it. This bobk says there are both Angels of light, and angels of darkness, why is this simple fact so hard for some? For instance, in this particular thread, the comment is made that Michael is Christ. or thereabouts, Now how does one come up with this far out idea??????

"You wouldn't beleive me if I told you."

Jesus in reply to religion.

Edited by Colter, 04 June 2005 - 12:02 PM.

[Evangelion]

scooter, on Jun 4 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

This book says there are both Angels of light, and angels of darkness, why is this simple fact so hard for some?

"Angels" doesn't necessarily mean "supernatural beings", and it is a mistake to read the Word as if this is not true.

Context is :king:

[Gileade]

Colter,
don't forget that you are not reading the originals, the text you read is a translation, thus, you must take in account that all translations are Biased, some more than others but all are.

You should check the greek word Aggelos(Angels) for its meanings and then see which one will fit the passage without contradicting the rest of the Scriptures.

[Dawn]

"Jesus, then, the Son of David and Son of the Eternal Power by David's daughter, is Michael the great Prince of Israel, who comes to redeem his kinsmen and their inheritance, and to break in pieces their oppressors. But as he is not only a single individual, but also one containing many - a manifold man- whose sumbolical number is 144,000; the many "in him" are constituents of "Michael the Great Prince", who delivers Israel in the time of trouble which transcends all the calamitous perios of human history since the Flood". (from "Phanerosis" by John Thomas).

[Fortigurn]

Dawn, on Jun 7 2005, 08:33 PM, said:

"Jesus, then, the Son of David and Son of the Eternal Power by David's daughter, is Michael the great Prince of Israel, who comes to redeem his kinsmen and their inheritance, and to break in pieces their oppressors. But as he is not only a single individual, but also one containing many - a manifold man- whose sumbolical number is 144,000; the many "in him" are constituents of "Michael the Great Prince", who delivers Israel in the time of trouble which transcends all the calamitous perios of human history since the Flood". (from "Phanerosis" by John Thomas).

Brother Thomas believed that 'Michael the great prince' was a title of Christ, as well as being a title of Christ and the saints together.

But he still believed that Michael was the personal name of an arch angel. See Phanerosis page 128.

[Dawn]

Fortigurn, on Jun 7 2005, 12:50 PM, said:

Dawn, on Jun 7 2005, 08:33 PM, said:

"Jesus, then, the Son of David and Son of the Eternal Power by David's daughter, is Michael the great Prince of Israel, who comes to redeem his kinsmen and their inheritance, and to break in pieces their oppressors.  But as he is not only a single individual, but also one containing many - a manifold man- whose sumbolical number is 144,000; the many "in him" are constituents of "Michael the Great Prince", who delivers Israel in the time of trouble which transcends all the calamitous perios of human history since the Flood".  (from "Phanerosis" by John Thomas).

Brother Thomas believed that 'Michael the great prince' was a title of Christ, as well as being a title of Christ and the saints together.

But he still believed that Michael was the personal name of an arch angel. See Phanerosis page 128.

Thanks. I didn't know that - very interesting and makes much more sense.

(Btw, my very old copy of Phanerosis has only got 78 pages - it has very small print which you nearly need a magnifying glass to read! - and the bit I quote from above is from page 78, so the bit you refer to must come before then. Oh well - not to worry: I'll take your word for it).

[Fortigurn]

Dawn, on Jun 7 2005, 09:02 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Jun 7 2005, 12:50 PM, said:

Dawn, on Jun 7 2005, 08:33 PM, said:

"Jesus, then, the Son of David and Son of the Eternal Power by David's daughter, is Michael the great Prince of Israel, who comes to redeem his kinsmen and their inheritance, and to break in pieces their oppressors.  But as he is not only a single individual, but also one containing many - a manifold man- whose sumbolical number is 144,000; the many "in him" are constituents of "Michael the Great Prince", who delivers Israel in the time of trouble which transcends all the calamitous perios of human history since the Flood".  (from "Phanerosis" by John Thomas).

Brother Thomas believed that 'Michael the great prince' was a title of Christ, as well as being a title of Christ and the saints together.

But he still believed that Michael was the personal name of an arch angel. See Phanerosis page 128.

Thanks. I didn't know that - very interesting and makes much more sense.

(Btw, my very old copy of Phanerosis has only got 78 pages - it has very small print which you nearly need a magnifying glass to read! - and the bit I quote from above is from page 78, so the bit you refer to must come before then. Oh well - not to worry: I'll take your word for it).

The one I read is definitely a later edition. You can read it here.

[Colter]

Quote

Brother Thomas believed that 'Michael the great prince' was a title of Christ, as well as being a title of Christ and the saints together.

So, silly old Colter isn't so stupid after all. :shades:

Brother Thomas, heres one for you. and if your gonna have one then I may as well.........oh never mind. I'll have coffee instead :coffee:

[Fortigurn]

Colter, on Jun 8 2005, 03:43 AM, said:

Quote

Brother Thomas believed that 'Michael the great prince' was a title of Christ, as well as being a title of Christ and the saints together.

So, silly old Colter isn't so stupid after all. :shades:

Brother Thomas, heres one for you. and if your gonna have one then I may as well.........oh never mind. I'll have coffee instead :coffee:

Please read him carefully and note that he did not believe that Michael is Christ, as you do.