Can you please reference the verse where seven archangels are named? From what I’ve studied only Michael is ever stated to hold the title of archangel. Everyone else is just stated to be an angel.
Do you specifically focus on the part of "arch" in angels in my whole comment? You are correct - only Michael is named as an archangel in the Bible. I apparently made a mistake to add "arch" in that place, but thanks for correcting that. Yes, everyone else is stated as an angel and the 7 I talk about are not mentioned as archangels indeed.
I don’t have a lot of time to address everything. The “arch” designation is very important however as wether or not it is a description of a type of angel or a descriptive title is the crux of the study I linked. Jesus obviously didn’t choose to plainly state the truth of the matter, it’s not really critical information from a salvational standpoint, but enough info is given in the text for us to understand what’s happening. God reveals information through study of His word. Veith shows through scripture how descriptions of Michael are only elsewhere used for Christ in this lecture. Additionally, the fact that none of the other angels accept praise isn’t a strong argument as we don’t have any instance of Michael making an appearance in front of men to compare. All we can glean from that point is that regular angels are fellow servants and we aren’t to worship them and they are different from Michael as they lack the title of leader. As unfallen beings, they are so glorious to behold that men who saw them were compelled to worship them. This info however can’t be bridged to Michael as they don’t have the archangel signifier and they aren’t described the same as Christ.
Then how do you explain that Jesus is also referred as "the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the Earth"?
Or why would archangel be the same as a pivotal figure in the Bible, but no one mentions that in the book? Do you think GOD missed something to inform you that Michael is his son?
Your only logic is that Michael is the most important angel mentioned in the Bible - Jesus is the most important man mentioned in the Bible. Thus, them must be the same... Absurdisms...
But that's what happens if you outsource your Bible knowledge. It is regretable that Veigt is the one doing it, but your only theory is based on assumptions... Remember that Jesus quoted the Bible to say who he was. Yet, GOD didn't mention Michael will be savior, the king of kings, etc. No, it is the Lamb of GOD that is the King of Kings!
I don’t have a lot of time to address everything.
Please... :D You have time to watch nonsense and post about it. Certainly you have extra time to spend, but I guess it makes you feel important to make excuses how you avoid all the other topics I've raised. Classic denial. You focus on the parts that are incorrect only because you expect me to be incorrect and that is the only galaxy you live in. However, it is made in your own mind, when you refuse to be open minded about criticism.
You don't have a lot of time, but you instantly reply to me... Sorry but that probably works on someone that hasn't spent so much time on psychology as I have...
Bottom line, you either face the facts or you don't. Again, I write too much when you write too little. It is obvious who cares more about the truth. You care only to get the upvotes on your video, or is it seeking acceptance?
Veigt shared his story of making a girl cry because she believed in GOD and he believed in evolution. GOD obviously turned his way, as Veigt states, but this is clearly a man that has a history of wanting to be right for his sake, not for the sake of truth. Listen to his testimony. Although, I hoped he is as pure as Kent Hovind, he reveals himself as a theologist now that creates a totally new understanding of the Bible... You may fall for that yourself, but let me remind you that "if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch".
I would answer that Jesus is described as “the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth” because the plan of salvation was conceived before the earth was even made. God knew from the beginning that the Son would need to be the sacrifice for fallen man. A lamb because it references the sacrificial system and because a lamb is innocent. The foundation of the world because God knew from the beginning what would have to happen. Using that description doesn’t prevent any other descriptions being applied to Christ.
Michael being Jesus is alluded to, but not outright stated likely because it isn’t that important from a salvational standpoint. This doesn’t change that there’s plenty of scripture alluding to it. The argument isn’t just that Michael is the leader of the angels, therefore he must be God, it’s that the language used in the Bible makes perfect sense if Michael is just another name Jesus has in heaven.
…Michael, your ruler… Daniel 10:21
Michael is referred to as the ruler of Gods people in Daniel 10:21. That can’t be so unless he is God.
At the end of Daniel, when talking about the second coming, the angel speaking to Daniel says:
And at that time shal Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people…. Daniel 12:1
Later in the Bible when the same event is described, it is Jesus who stands up.
In Jude 9 we have Michael arguing over the body of Moses with Satan. Only Jesus has authority over salvational status and wether or not somebody lives or dies with the devil.
Elsewhere, we see the term “archangel” applied to Christ:
The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel. 1 Thessalonians 4:16
We can also see the term angel be applied to God in the Bible. For example:
The angel who redeemed me from all evil… Genesis 48:16
Here, Israel is blessing Joseph and uses the term angel to describe God. Angels can’t redeem you, only Christ can. This use of the word must not be referring to an angel that is a created being like the rest of the angels.
Again in Exodus, Jesus is referred to as an angel:
…and the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire… Exodus 3:2
The term “angel” is sometimes used to describe God.
The name Michael translates to “He that is what God is” so Archangel Michael can loosely translate to “God, the leader of the angels”.
Later His name would be Emmanuel: “God with us” and when He actually came it was Yahushua: “YAWEH the savior”. The name tells you who it is and can change based on circumstance or if a particular point is being made.
If you want extra-biblical texts, even high level occultists like Helena Blavatsky when explaining how the occult inverts the story to make God the devil and the devil God states that Michael and his army are inverted to become Satan and the fallen angels in Secret Doctrine 1 p.418
She goes on to iterate plainly that they also believe Michael is Jesus when she states:
“…that Michael being simply Jehovah himself” Secret Doctrine 2 p. 508
There are many allusions in scripture and outside of it that would suggest Michael is just Jesus.
Also, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t insult me for trying to engage in earnest study of the scriptures. It’s never a waste of time. I am extremely busy with my work but I make time for things like this because I am called to do it as a service to God and I want to help others come to Him. The war against good and evil is the ultimate conspiracy and I am trying to bring the people that go to sites like this out of spiritualism. I don’t address everything because I have to respond to these posts from my phone in between the various other things I have to do. I am insulted you would think I care about something as worthless as upvotes on a computer. If I wanted upvotes or positive attention, there are plenty of satanic or heretical topics I could cover but I’m not here for that. Utter nonsense.
Can you please reference the verse where seven archangels are named? From what I’ve studied only Michael is ever stated to hold the title of archangel. Everyone else is just stated to be an angel.
Do you specifically focus on the part of "arch" in angels in my whole comment? You are correct - only Michael is named as an archangel in the Bible. I apparently made a mistake to add "arch" in that place, but thanks for correcting that. Yes, everyone else is stated as an angel and the 7 I talk about are not mentioned as archangels indeed.
I don’t have a lot of time to address everything. The “arch” designation is very important however as wether or not it is a description of a type of angel or a descriptive title is the crux of the study I linked. Jesus obviously didn’t choose to plainly state the truth of the matter, it’s not really critical information from a salvational standpoint, but enough info is given in the text for us to understand what’s happening. God reveals information through study of His word. Veith shows through scripture how descriptions of Michael are only elsewhere used for Christ in this lecture. Additionally, the fact that none of the other angels accept praise isn’t a strong argument as we don’t have any instance of Michael making an appearance in front of men to compare. All we can glean from that point is that regular angels are fellow servants and we aren’t to worship them and they are different from Michael as they lack the title of leader. As unfallen beings, they are so glorious to behold that men who saw them were compelled to worship them. This info however can’t be bridged to Michael as they don’t have the archangel signifier and they aren’t described the same as Christ.
Then how do you explain that Jesus is also referred as "the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the Earth"?
Or why would archangel be the same as a pivotal figure in the Bible, but no one mentions that in the book? Do you think GOD missed something to inform you that Michael is his son?
Your only logic is that Michael is the most important angel mentioned in the Bible - Jesus is the most important man mentioned in the Bible. Thus, them must be the same... Absurdisms...
But that's what happens if you outsource your Bible knowledge. It is regretable that Veigt is the one doing it, but your only theory is based on assumptions... Remember that Jesus quoted the Bible to say who he was. Yet, GOD didn't mention Michael will be savior, the king of kings, etc. No, it is the Lamb of GOD that is the King of Kings!
Please... :D You have time to watch nonsense and post about it. Certainly you have extra time to spend, but I guess it makes you feel important to make excuses how you avoid all the other topics I've raised. Classic denial. You focus on the parts that are incorrect only because you expect me to be incorrect and that is the only galaxy you live in. However, it is made in your own mind, when you refuse to be open minded about criticism.
You don't have a lot of time, but you instantly reply to me... Sorry but that probably works on someone that hasn't spent so much time on psychology as I have...
Bottom line, you either face the facts or you don't. Again, I write too much when you write too little. It is obvious who cares more about the truth. You care only to get the upvotes on your video, or is it seeking acceptance?
Veigt shared his story of making a girl cry because she believed in GOD and he believed in evolution. GOD obviously turned his way, as Veigt states, but this is clearly a man that has a history of wanting to be right for his sake, not for the sake of truth. Listen to his testimony. Although, I hoped he is as pure as Kent Hovind, he reveals himself as a theologist now that creates a totally new understanding of the Bible... You may fall for that yourself, but let me remind you that "if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch".
I would answer that Jesus is described as “the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth” because the plan of salvation was conceived before the earth was even made. God knew from the beginning that the Son would need to be the sacrifice for fallen man. A lamb because it references the sacrificial system and because a lamb is innocent. The foundation of the world because God knew from the beginning what would have to happen. Using that description doesn’t prevent any other descriptions being applied to Christ.
Michael being Jesus is alluded to, but not outright stated likely because it isn’t that important from a salvational standpoint. This doesn’t change that there’s plenty of scripture alluding to it. The argument isn’t just that Michael is the leader of the angels, therefore he must be God, it’s that the language used in the Bible makes perfect sense if Michael is just another name Jesus has in heaven.
…Michael, your ruler… Daniel 10:21
Michael is referred to as the ruler of Gods people in Daniel 10:21. That can’t be so unless he is God.
At the end of Daniel, when talking about the second coming, the angel speaking to Daniel says:
And at that time shal Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people…. Daniel 12:1
Later in the Bible when the same event is described, it is Jesus who stands up.
In Jude 9 we have Michael arguing over the body of Moses with Satan. Only Jesus has authority over salvational status and wether or not somebody lives or dies with the devil.
Elsewhere, we see the term “archangel” applied to Christ:
The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel. 1 Thessalonians 4:16
We can also see the term angel be applied to God in the Bible. For example:
The angel who redeemed me from all evil… Genesis 48:16
Here, Israel is blessing Joseph and uses the term angel to describe God. Angels can’t redeem you, only Christ can. This use of the word must not be referring to an angel that is a created being like the rest of the angels.
Again in Exodus, Jesus is referred to as an angel:
…and the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire… Exodus 3:2
The term “angel” is sometimes used to describe God.
The name Michael translates to “He that is what God is” so Archangel Michael can loosely translate to “God, the leader of the angels”. Later His name would be Emmanuel: “God with us” and when He actually came it was Yahushua: “YAWEH the savior”. The name tells you who it is and can change based on circumstance or if a particular point is being made.
If you want extra-biblical texts, even high level occultists like Helena Blavatsky when explaining how the occult inverts the story to make God the devil and the devil God states that Michael and his army are inverted to become Satan and the fallen angels in Secret Doctrine 1 p.418
She goes on to iterate plainly that they also believe Michael is Jesus when she states:
“…that Michael being simply Jehovah himself” Secret Doctrine 2 p. 508
There are many allusions in scripture and outside of it that would suggest Michael is just Jesus.
Also, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t insult me for trying to engage in earnest study of the scriptures. It’s never a waste of time. I am extremely busy with my work but I make time for things like this because I am called to do it as a service to God and I want to help others come to Him. The war against good and evil is the ultimate conspiracy and I am trying to bring the people that go to sites like this out of spiritualism. I don’t address everything because I have to respond to these posts from my phone in between the various other things I have to do. I am insulted you would think I care about something as worthless as upvotes on a computer. If I wanted upvotes or positive attention, there are plenty of satanic or heretical topics I could cover but I’m not here for that. Utter nonsense.