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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. Could you please elaborate as to what that has to do with this subject regarding Bible names?

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. This is telling you that all these attributes apply 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. Could you please elaborate as to what that has to do with this subject regarding Bible names?

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. This is telling you that all these attributes apply 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.