Wafting back and forth between two extremes is actually talked about in the Bible trough the story of the war between the north and the south. The king of the south represents liberalism and the north represents religious conservatism. On the surface, they seem bitterly opposed but are actually both agents of Satan. Scripture states that at the end, the king of the north wins and a call of apparent peace rings out over the earth before sudden destruction. The sudden destruction being the second coming of Christ. For this reason, you should be extremely suspicious of any big religious revivals or Christian religious movements that get big traction in popular culture or politics. It’s highly likely to be a lie.
This topic has puzzled numerous expositors: how does Islam fit into the picture of global conflict? Is this a political or religious conflict, or both? What is Islam’s origin and what are its goals? How does it impact ecumenism and the doctrine of salvation in Christ? Can we find evidence that the Catholic Church created Islam or helped them grow? This lecture sheds some light on the picture.
Try this one:
https://youtu.be/TrZ617fTHzc?si=Bi6itw260TXbG0eg
It’s a really long lecture series so you kinda have to be in it for the long haul to get the whole story. That being said, it is a master class in connecting scripture, prophecy, and world events.
You shouldn’t be looking for a Christian interpretation, you should be looking for a Bible interpretation. The Bible defines its own terms within the text in the same way that a legal document defines the terms within itself. What you say doesn’t make sense as any valid Christian interpretation should stem from what the Bible says. If you’re going to use extra biblical texts they must not contradict what exists in the Bible and they can’t base any theories off of definitions for words that the Bible doesn’t provide.
The Bible plainly states that you weren’t going to Gain a deeper understanding of biblical truth until you actually read it for yourself. You can listen to podcasts all day long but at the end of the day that’s not a personal relationship with Jesus and the word. That’s just listening to other peoples interpretations of a book that you’re not reading yourself.
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.
Don’t forget according to her, the “Externalization of the Heirarchy” is going to occur sometime in 2025-2027. My favorite hypothesis is that Lucifer and his fallen angels will manifest and declare themselves to be extraterrestrials who are here to save us from the destruction of the earth. Lucifer will be Jesus and there will also be Buddha, Krishna, etc. they will be ascended masters who went to love with the aliens and they will seem to be able to make the dead come back to life. It’s the false alien agenda that they will use to capture the hearts and minds of the people of earth.
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.
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.
Yes, I’m aware. It’s also the most cohesive, consistent, and intertwined collection that has ever existed. The study of what is and isn’t canonical, how they decided, the origins of different translations, what groups kept what translations, etc. is a very fascinating subject. There are very good reasons as to why the books that are included in the canon are included and the apocryphal books aren’t. As you continue to study the subject, you start to get very familiar with the character of God and notice very quickly when translational changes or story beats that don’t jive with the rest of scripture get mixed in. Satan uses the same rhetoric over and over.
I’ve already seen all that thanks. Reminds me of the meru foundations research on the Hebrew alphabet.
Your interpretation on the Bible’s stance regarding magic is incorrect however. God repeatedly states that His people are to have nothing to do with magic or worldly arts of that sort. To engage in that requires you to contact and obey fallen angels. The hebrews routinely disobeyed Him or misunderstood what He meant when they engaged in that behavior. Any members of the higher priesthood that were secretly practicing magic did so to their own detriment as Jesus rebuked them for such things in both the Old and New Testament.
You’ve proved my point. Either do the deep dive into the material to find out if your perceived contradictions exist or remain ignorant.
It’s all the same God, not multiple. It becomes more clear when you understand the wording for certain instances from Hebrew thought. From their point of view, if God permits something to happen, it’s valid to write as if He made it happen. In the case of the flood, you have to remember that God waited for thousands of years before declaring the world would be destroyed by the flood. By that time, wickedness had become so prevalent, it would have threatened the plan of salvation so He declared the world would be destroyed. Even then, He commanded Noah to preach the warning that the flood would come for 120 years before it finally came. In that time, anyone who was willing was given a chance at mercy and they would be allowed into the ark so long as they would change their ways. Everybody who was destroyed in the flood had an opportunity to hear both sides and make their choice as to what they would do. God makes it a rule for Himself that His creation is given free will and the capacity to exercise that will. It’s why so many bad things happen to good people. God isn’t making those bad things happen, he’s just permitting people (including the fallen angels) to make what choices they will with the time given them to make those choices. If you want, I can post some information regarding biblical typology and material that further explains the mindset of God. Once you can see things through that lens and not the lens of a human mindset, it all makes a lot more sense.
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.
Of course he still had Gods ear. God isn’t a tyrant and gives everyone free will. He lets the Devil play things out within reason to allow the rest of creation an opportunity to see for themselves the consequences of sin. That’s why it’s playing out like this and God didn’t just erase Lucifer from existence right away. That would’ve left room for doubt and would only have given sin an opportunity to arise in others.
I am SDA and the doctrines are fundamentally different in that JW’s deny the deity of Christ among other issues. It’s a very different thing for them to say Michael is Jesus as they mean something very different from the suggestion.
I’m sure you’re going to unlock the secrets of the universe by reading short blurbs on jpeg’s and videos less than 10 minutes long. Embrace some intellectual rigor sometime.
Jehovahs Witnesses deny the deity of Christ and believe that the Holy Spirit is just an ephemeral power of God’s and not His own person as part of the trinity. To them, Jesus is just another created being. This lecture is pointing out that the language used in scripture would actually point that Michael is just Jesus before He became a man and He held the title of “Archangel” in Heaven which just means “Leader of the Angels”. The name Michael means “That which is what God is”. It is very common for someone to have many different names in Heaven depending on the circumstances surrounding them at the time. The attributes attributed to Michael in scripture are only ever attributed to Christ and since He has the power, it’s not a far leap to make the conclusion that Michael is just another one of His names, just like another name is Emmanuel.
Spiritual war isn’t waged with worldly weapons. We aren’t to attack and kill each other. Instead, spiritual war is a war of hearts and minds. We are to call on our enemies to come out of the world and turn to Christ regardless of the bodily harm they may inflict on us. Our role isn’t to do the fighting, our role is to go wake other people up.
God also states in scripture that we aren’t supposed to be waging physical war. He is the one who is supposed to fight our battles for us. He is the one that ultimately comes and destroys the evil. In your first verse, Jesus is telling His disciples not to fight as that isn’t their job, it is His. You ruin the message of selfless love when you try to convert people with violence, instead, you need to follow the example of Christ.
Michael fought in the war in Heaven because God bears that responsibility and has the power to guarantee an outcome just as He says it will be Him who destroys the ungodly at the second coming.
Today I will share a very nice scriptural study that will shed some light on who Archangel Michael actually is in scripture and why it is important to understand how names in the Bible work. At the end of the day, the one true God has many names. You can be sure you know Him when you obey Him and keep His testimony.
You seem to have learned basic mythology taught in grade school and then stopped there, never actually investigating for anything of deeper substance.
That’s not how biblical naming works. In the Bible, your name changes based on circumstance. Before the fall, he was Lucifer. After the fall, he is Satan. Ba’al is just one of the names pagans gave him. You can still tell it’s the same person by the symbolism, doctrine, and moral character associated with the different names. The same thing applies to us as we are given new names after the second coming of Christ to reflect our status as redeemed beings.
If you really want to do a deep dive then n the Catholic Church and it’s significance in scripture, go watch Total Onslaught on YouTube by pastor Walter Veith. I’ll be posting one of the lectures this Saturday which covers how agents of the Catholic Church were actually responsible for the creation of Islam. Keep an eye out for it.
Yeah, if I remember correctly they delegate Jesus to having been a lesser prophet. According to them, He didn’t even die on the cross, having substituted a look alike in secret to avoid such a humiliating death.