It is very sad to see Veith being so deluded... He has awesome lectures about the NWO, the Catholic propaganda, etc. But this one to equate the son of God with an angel of God is disturbing...
Why would Jesus be Michael but never reveal it. Didn't he reveal that David himself saw him as a LORD? In comparison, an angel helps John and John tries to bow before the angel, to which the angel stops him with the statement that only God deserves praises such as bows. In comparison to Jesus, Jesus allowed himself to be worshiped.
Even the scripture describes Michael as the Strength of GOD, while Jesus is the WORD of GOD.
Jesus is also described as "the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the Earth". Who sits on the right hand of God's throne.
I hope Veith can still be moved by GOD in the right direction. I feel sad seeing him confuse an archangel for the Son of GOD... I was with him on so much of his lectures... It is sad to see his arrogance get the better of him. Leading his followers astray is not a burdain I want on my shoulders...
The Archangels are 7, the Son of GOD is only ONE. You make your best judgement, but please review the new testament and especially revelations, when the Son of GOD is seen in Heaven in his true form. Then compare those to any mention of Michael. It is true that they both serve GOD greatly and their actions might be similar, but to combine them in one form, would mean that you put the Son of GOD down and you put an Archangel up. I bet that both Jesus and Michael will disagree with that. What is left for GOD to do in this case?
Sorry, but this is propaganda and I hate hearing it from Veith. Only a person, unaware of the scripture, can fall for that propaganda. I hope you are not one of those people! If Veith falls, don't follow him into the abyss.
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".
It is very sad to see Veith being so deluded... He has awesome lectures about the NWO, the Catholic propaganda, etc. But this one to equate the son of God with an angel of God is disturbing...
Why would Jesus be Michael but never reveal it. Didn't he reveal that David himself saw him as a LORD? In comparison, an angel helps John and John tries to bow before the angel, to which the angel stops him with the statement that only God deserves praises such as bows. In comparison to Jesus, Jesus allowed himself to be worshiped.
Even the scripture describes Michael as the Strength of GOD, while Jesus is the WORD of GOD.
Jesus is also described as "the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the Earth". Who sits on the right hand of God's throne.
I hope Veith can still be moved by GOD in the right direction. I feel sad seeing him confuse an archangel for the Son of GOD... I was with him on so much of his lectures... It is sad to see his arrogance get the better of him. Leading his followers astray is not a burdain I want on my shoulders...
The Archangels are 7, the Son of GOD is only ONE. You make your best judgement, but please review the new testament and especially revelations, when the Son of GOD is seen in Heaven in his true form. Then compare those to any mention of Michael. It is true that they both serve GOD greatly and their actions might be similar, but to combine them in one form, would mean that you put the Son of GOD down and you put an Archangel up. I bet that both Jesus and Michael will disagree with that. What is left for GOD to do in this case?
Sorry, but this is propaganda and I hate hearing it from Veith. Only a person, unaware of the scripture, can fall for that propaganda. I hope you are not one of those people! If Veith falls, don't follow him into the abyss.
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".