Excuse me justhefacts, I want to make "CLEAR" that Jesus Christ is "NOT" an actual angel nor is He Michael the archangel. You miss understood my position. The following is what I said:Mal 3:1- "Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me,
and Jehovah whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple;
the ANGEL of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming,
says Jehovah of hosts.
2- But who can endure the day of his coming,
and who can stand when he appears?"
Gal 4: 14- and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
Jesus was the GREATEST of all God's Messengers ("Angels').
Well that's a "mature" and snappy response. We have a "drive by" Jw in our midst?Mixture and Madness...
Well, what can I say when one ignores scripture?
It has been proven many times Jesus was only an angel. Since John was told about the scroll in revelations and since only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after he took it from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and it is an angel telling John about the scroll , then that means the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.Nope. Jesus isn't an angel. An angel would never dare declare for itself what Christ declares for Himself in John 14:8-9.
The term "angel" means "messenger", but to them claim that Jesus was only a messenger is to ignore most of scripture. He was much more than just a messenger which is why Christ can't be just a messenger.It has been proven many times Jesus was only an angel. Since John was told about the scroll in revelations and since only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after he took it from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and it is an angel telling John about the scroll , then that means the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.
You are trying to skirt the issue and that is only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after it was taken from the Father which means that the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus. Now prove who else could have been worthy to tell John about the scroll and document it, or the only conclusion reasonably anyone can come to is the angel telling John about the scroll had to have been Jesus.The term "angel" means "messenger", but to them claim that Jesus was only a messenger is to ignore most of scripture. He was much more than just a messenger which is why Christ can't be just a messenger.
I'm not skirting the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that messenger is not the only role Christ has. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're using this term to denote a type of creature whereas, I'm pointing out that the term is not restricted to that idea, but is primarily used to describe messengers.You are trying to skirt the issue and that is only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after it was taken from the Father
Perhaps, I'm not convinced though. I'd have to look it over again. There are a number of place in the bible where we see "an angel of the Lord" saying something, and then in the next verse it will say, "and the Lord said...", indicating that they are perhaps effectively one and the same, e.g. "when you have seen the son, you have seen the father" can be extended to include, "when you have seen an angel of the Lord, you have seen God" etc.which means that the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus.
Again, my memory isn't clear so I will have to look at it again, my recollection is that there is much that isn't revealed. I might be getting it mixed up with Daniel or some other old testament prophet's vision.Now prove who else could have been worthy to tell John about the scroll and document it, or the only conclusion reasonably anyone can come to is the angel telling John about the scroll had to have been Jesus.
Just remember to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll or Jesus is the angel who told John about the scroll?I'm not skirting the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that messenger is not the only role Christ has. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're using this term to denote a type of creature whereas, I'm pointing out that the term is not restricted to that idea, but is primarily used to describe messengers.
Perhaps, I'm not convinced though. I'd have to look it over again. There are a number of place in the bible where we see "an angel of the Lord" saying something, and then in the next verse it will say, "and the Lord said...", indicating that they are perhaps effectively one and the same, e.g. "when you have seen the son, you have seen the father" can be extended to include, "when you have seen an angel of the Lord, you have seen God" etc.
Again, my memory isn't clear so I will have to look at it again, my recollection is that there is much that isn't revealed. I might be getting it mixed up with Daniel or some other old testament prophet's vision.
The book begins with, "The revelation of Jesus Christ...etc." so I'm not sure where you get this idea that Jesus has to be an angel (creature) rather than the more accurate idea of messenger. Why not just go with the flow of the text rather than inject these doctrines which only detract from the message?Just remember to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll or Jesus is the angel who told John about the scroll?
I explained it very clearly that since only Jesus is worthy to know what is in the scroll after it is taken from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and since an angel tells John about the scroll, then that means the angel who told John about the scroll had to have been Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information. Again anyone who says otherwise has to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll? Meaning until someone can document who other than Jesus was worthy to know about the scroll the only candidate who the angel could have been is Jesus.The book begins with, "The revelation of Jesus Christ...etc." so I'm not sure where you get this idea that Jesus has to be an angel (creature) rather than the more accurate idea of messenger. Why not just go with the flow of the text rather than inject these doctrines which only detract from the message?
And then John reveals it to anyone else who decides to read John's Revelation so just because you come up with this claim, it doesn't then follow because EVERYONE now knows, and yet this is a prophecy of what is to come, correct???I explained it very clearly that since only Jesus is worthy to know what is in the scroll after it is taken from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and since an angel tells John about the scroll, then that means the angel who told John about the scroll had to have been Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.
According to you logic, we're all worthy because we all already know what's in the scroll even though none of this has actually come to pass yet. Seems a bit anticlimactic, don't you think? What's going to happen when this actually happens? We're all going to know what's going to happen so it's a spoiler alert?Again anyone who says otherwise has to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll?
Except for the fact that we all know now the contents of the scroll before the fact. So it kinda throws your thoery right out the window.Meaning until someone can document who other than Jesus was worthy to know about the scroll the only candidate who the angel could have been is Jesus.
That appears on all of my posts to everyone.You mean you do not want my posts to appear on your screen
Was Jesus who you say is only an angel named Michael? Was it Jesus as Michael the same angel that called out from heaven to Abraham at Genesis 22:15?It has been proven many times Jesus was only an angel. Since John was told about the scroll in revelations and since only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after he took it from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and it is an angel telling John about the scroll , then that means the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.
More than likely he was not Michael.Was Jesus who you say is only an angel named Michael? Was it Jesus as Michael the same angel that called out from heaven to Abraham at Genesis 22:15?
IN HIM,
james