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.
Michael is referred to as the ruler of Gods people in Daniel 10:21. That can’t be so unless he is God.
You equate an archangel "as it is written" to GOD "as it is written", you must be insane! Angels prevent bowing down to them in the Bible. Jesus himself said that ONLY GOD is good, and deflected praises that he was good.
And at that time shal Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people…. Daniel 12:1
Which version is that? I know it is not KJV. Again, KJV states "prince".
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.
You assume only Jesus can do that. Yet, you believe in GOD that can do all things... So, clearly at least two can do that. Why not Michael by doing the will of GOD?
The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel. 1 Thessalonians 4:16
Finish the verse:
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
One sentence distinguishes them all. Otherwise, it would use the same names, not different ones. It uses only what is known from previous scripture.
The angel who redeemed me from all evil… Genesis 48:16
Angel means a "messenger".
I see now that most of your points are refering to Christ as an Angel, however, the word means "messenger". Every prophet is a messenger of GOD, would you call them angels as well?
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.
Is that really the case in the past two comments... Think about it when you are not too busy flattering yourself. I didn't insult you, I stated that your previous comments don't match mine. Now, your comment matches mine. What does that tell you? (In commitment, not in agreement.)
Sorry, I kept reading...
“…that Michael being simply Jehovah himself” Secret Doctrine 2 p. 508
What? You bring up something that IS NOT SCRIPTURE? You think GOD is incapable of adding them to the originals? "Secret Doctrine"... I bet some people buy this nonsense...
Think about it... If your theory is correct, why would GOD hide it so much? It doesn't make sense, all of His statements are clear with many other scriptures.
33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
Just review the section marked in bold, it is referring to "messengers", but only one is the SON.
I don’t bring up the secret doctrine as if it’s scripture. I bring it up to show that the people who directly channeled evil spirits to obtain their doctrines understood that Michael was another name for Jesus and sought to invert the story so as to make Lucifer the good guy. Blavatsky’s works basically lay bare everything you would want to know about Lucifer’s version of the story and how it differed from what’s in scripture. And yes, many people believe in it. The new age religion of Realism is an excellent example of a modern take on Theosopy and I’m certain it’s tenants will provide the major story beats for the final deception coming soon.
I don’t think my theory is necessarily correct, I believe that the language used in the Bible leads to that conclusion. The text doesn’t suggest that God is intentionally hiding anything. Whether or not Michael is Jesus isn’t a salvational matter as long as you understand that Jesus is God and you understand how salvation works so it doesn’t need to be emphasized.
You make a point that I believe in a God that can do all things so there must be two who can make a call on salvational status. It entirely depends on how you view the Trinity. Jesus is God. God exists as three co-equal beings being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are individually distinguished from each other but they are all God and are in perfect harmony with one another. Jesus, being the one who conquered death and died for our sins is the intercessor for mankind and therefore is the one who is technically “in charge” of ultimately judging man. You could say that God, in general, can do this but clearly different parts of God have different roles in creation. If you wanted to say that the two were operating in cooperation to make this happen, then yes, you could say two have the power. You could even say three have the power as the Holy Spirit is also God. The Bible however tells us that the Son is the savior and the one who is in charge of the decision.
You also argue that Thessalonians 4:16 distinguishes the three. It actually combines them. It’s saying the Lord(God) has the voice of the archangel, the Trump of God, and that the dead in Christ (Him) shal rise first. The sentence by its very structure applies all these attributes to the Lord. It’s telling you that Christ is Lord/is the archangel/is God. It’s telling you those attributes apply to the Lord.
Clearly the prophets aren’t referred to as angels so no, not all messengers of God are angels. If just saying angel means messenger was enough, you would see the prophets being called angels as well.
As for the parable of the husbandmen, that was a direct rebuke of the Pharisees and the apostasy that had seized Gods people and foreshadowed the crucifixion and passing of the gospel to the gentiles. It was a story for the specific situation and describes their persistent refusal to listen to the prophets and obey God. Could you please elaborate as to what that has to do with this subject regarding Bible names?
And yes, it’s insulting someone when you make accusations of their intentions with no proof. Due to the nature of this platform, you must make assumptions to insinuate I am just in this for clicks. Regardless, I’m not going to speak anymore of it. I’m sorry to have offended you and if I come off as insincere, it is only due to the nature of text. At the end of the day, I want us to come to a full knowledge of the Truth and for us to all embody it in our lives and character.
Well, I made a mistake to insinuate regarding your motives and I appologize. You have been consistent in honesty and, even though I don't fully agree with you, I respect the honesty and positivity in your comments.
I hope you are right on the topic. If someone can get to the real answer, it must be someone so well-versed in the scripture like you.
I honestly mean that. I know written communication has its drawbacks but I take note for my actions. And I also see how well you've handled this communication.
Thank you for that awakening! I will have to rethink this whole idea about Michael and Jesus, and definitely read more from the scripture. GOD bless you, man.
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.
The word is "prince"... Not "ruler"... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+10%3A21&version=KJV
You equate an archangel "as it is written" to GOD "as it is written", you must be insane! Angels prevent bowing down to them in the Bible. Jesus himself said that ONLY GOD is good, and deflected praises that he was good.
Which version is that? I know it is not KJV. Again, KJV states "prince".
You assume only Jesus can do that. Yet, you believe in GOD that can do all things... So, clearly at least two can do that. Why not Michael by doing the will of GOD?
Finish the verse:
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
One sentence distinguishes them all. Otherwise, it would use the same names, not different ones. It uses only what is known from previous scripture.
Angel means a "messenger".
I see now that most of your points are refering to Christ as an Angel, however, the word means "messenger". Every prophet is a messenger of GOD, would you call them angels as well?
Is that really the case in the past two comments... Think about it when you are not too busy flattering yourself. I didn't insult you, I stated that your previous comments don't match mine. Now, your comment matches mine. What does that tell you? (In commitment, not in agreement.)
Sorry, I kept reading...
What? You bring up something that IS NOT SCRIPTURE? You think GOD is incapable of adding them to the originals? "Secret Doctrine"... I bet some people buy this nonsense...
Think about it... If your theory is correct, why would GOD hide it so much? It doesn't make sense, all of His statements are clear with many other scriptures.
Just review the section marked in bold, it is referring to "messengers", but only one is the SON.
I don’t bring up the secret doctrine as if it’s scripture. I bring it up to show that the people who directly channeled evil spirits to obtain their doctrines understood that Michael was another name for Jesus and sought to invert the story so as to make Lucifer the good guy. Blavatsky’s works basically lay bare everything you would want to know about Lucifer’s version of the story and how it differed from what’s in scripture. And yes, many people believe in it. The new age religion of Realism is an excellent example of a modern take on Theosopy and I’m certain it’s tenants will provide the major story beats for the final deception coming soon.
I don’t think my theory is necessarily correct, I believe that the language used in the Bible leads to that conclusion. The text doesn’t suggest that God is intentionally hiding anything. Whether or not Michael is Jesus isn’t a salvational matter as long as you understand that Jesus is God and you understand how salvation works so it doesn’t need to be emphasized.
You make a point that I believe in a God that can do all things so there must be two who can make a call on salvational status. It entirely depends on how you view the Trinity. Jesus is God. God exists as three co-equal beings being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are individually distinguished from each other but they are all God and are in perfect harmony with one another. Jesus, being the one who conquered death and died for our sins is the intercessor for mankind and therefore is the one who is technically “in charge” of ultimately judging man. You could say that God, in general, can do this but clearly different parts of God have different roles in creation. If you wanted to say that the two were operating in cooperation to make this happen, then yes, you could say two have the power. You could even say three have the power as the Holy Spirit is also God. The Bible however tells us that the Son is the savior and the one who is in charge of the decision.
You also argue that Thessalonians 4:16 distinguishes the three. It actually combines them. It’s saying the Lord(God) has the voice of the archangel, the Trump of God, and that the dead in Christ (Him) shal rise first. The sentence by its very structure applies all these attributes to the Lord. It’s telling you that Christ is Lord/is the archangel/is God. It’s telling you those attributes apply to the Lord.
Clearly the prophets aren’t referred to as angels so no, not all messengers of God are angels. If just saying angel means messenger was enough, you would see the prophets being called angels as well.
As for the parable of the husbandmen, that was a direct rebuke of the Pharisees and the apostasy that had seized Gods people and foreshadowed the crucifixion and passing of the gospel to the gentiles. It was a story for the specific situation and describes their persistent refusal to listen to the prophets and obey God. Could you please elaborate as to what that has to do with this subject regarding Bible names?
And yes, it’s insulting someone when you make accusations of their intentions with no proof. Due to the nature of this platform, you must make assumptions to insinuate I am just in this for clicks. Regardless, I’m not going to speak anymore of it. I’m sorry to have offended you and if I come off as insincere, it is only due to the nature of text. At the end of the day, I want us to come to a full knowledge of the Truth and for us to all embody it in our lives and character.
Well, I made a mistake to insinuate regarding your motives and I appologize. You have been consistent in honesty and, even though I don't fully agree with you, I respect the honesty and positivity in your comments.
I hope you are right on the topic. If someone can get to the real answer, it must be someone so well-versed in the scripture like you.
I honestly mean that. I know written communication has its drawbacks but I take note for my actions. And I also see how well you've handled this communication.
Thank you for that awakening! I will have to rethink this whole idea about Michael and Jesus, and definitely read more from the scripture. GOD bless you, man.