 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1969
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yman,
If you want to believe there are multiple archangels, that is up to you. I am going to believe what the Bible indicates.
Matt 4:6 is rendered in plural.
Matt11:10 is rendered in singular speaking of John the Baptist. "The messenger".
Your examples appear to be bogus.
You can talk big and act like you understand greek, but you should have your high school diploma taken away from you.
| Yman wrote: | | So in this case, then, you would agree that “The” archangel is “one of” many chief princes? |
Yes.
Who did the book of Daniel indicate Michael was prince over?
Dan 10:21 Mi´cha·el, the prince of YOU people.
| Yman wrote: | | I didn’t read any of composer’s posts. |
Well your "Do you actually read what was written" threw me as composer came up with the same red herring previous to you. 
Yman, you will believe what you want. If you want to discuss this you will need to prove there are multiple archangels Biblically. You cannot do it because the Bible only refers to one.
| Yman wrote: | | So you are right in that ‘prince’ is not synonymous with ‘angel’ because Daniel explicitly states the Messiah is prince, but nowhere is it said that Messiah is angel. (Rather a large omission wouldn’t you think?) |
That is what proved it wasn't a synonym??? You couldn't tell otherwise?
Hey! At least there is progress. Well at least you are not as bad as composer who is still fighting that. And no I don't believe not calling the messiah an angel is a large omission. In the grand scheme of things it is immaterial except for this discussion. 
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: J.W's |
|
|
Earlier TBax, you claimed that your ' Satan ' was the chief angel = chief messenger and the chief prince, whom you alleged, was a close to God as an angel could be and was thus the 'Chief messenger' of God but it wanted more? -
In support of your Lucifer = Satan literal being 'Chief messenger', you relied upon (amongst others) the following quotes: -
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, . . . (Eph. 2: 2) KJV and also -
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! {O Lucifer : or, O day star} 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12 - 15) KJV
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; . . . . . . 14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; , , , , , , 15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 . . . . . . and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, . . . . 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: . . . (Ezek. 28:13 - 17) KJV -
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (2 Pet. 2: 4) KJV (My Bolds)
#1: Based therefore upon your own evidence, let us use also your own analogy -
We conclude therefore (by direct substitution of TBax' evidence) -
Is Tbax' Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is Tbax' Satan an angel? Yes! ('cos (amongst others) I basically rely upon Isaiah 14:12 - 15, Ezek. 28:13 - 17, 2 Pet. 2: 4)
So TBax, your testimony shows a) Your alleged Satan is a prince and b) it is also an angel.
You TBax then conclude the following -
#2: Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
Well Tbax, actually it is now proven that by your own evidence, your alleged prince and angel ARE synonymous, yet at the same time you deny it? (See #2: above & also #2: 2 below)[/i]
You TBax are obviously the only one very confused?
TBax earlier wrote: Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:34 pm -
(Quote)" Can you understand that Prince and angel are not synonymous! (See #3 below: for Dictionary definition)
Can you comprehend this??? "(Unquote)
(Parenthesis by C2005)
However TBax, your other testimony proves you totally contradict yourself and you have proven yourself totally incapable of even understanding 'what you think you believe to be true' only to then totally contradict yourself.
-------------------------------
#3: synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2740
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The name is either Yehu, or Yehushuan. I will consider other appellations from you to be in violation of the board rules against name mockery.
| TBax wrote: | | If you want to believe there are multiple archangels, that is up to you. I am going to believe what the Bible indicates. |
But you aren’t, since you haven’t provided any valid Biblical “indication” that there is only one, and it’s a shame you seem so self-deluded. The existence of a definite article does not render singular uniqueness. Just because Jude states "Michael the archangel", doesn’t mean that there is one and only one archangel simply because a definite article is used. (And if I read correctly, this was your only argument for the assertion that only one archangel exists.)
Definite articles are used extensively elsewhere in the New Testament texts for singular instances of nouns where we know pluralities exist (and I gave quite valid examples). And don't be so quick to dismiss the designation that John the Baptist is "the angel", because that is precisely what the Greek text calls him, "τον αγγελον." Your own Greek text has the definite article. So maybe this particular species of heavenly critter you wish to call “angel” isn’t quite the reality you believe. Maybe the word angel Only means 'messenger' whether the creature be human or not.
| TBax wrote: | | …you should have your high school diploma taken away from you. |
 I strongly doubt you’re the man able to do so.
(Do you even have the Watchtower publication of the Greek interlinear? Didn’t think so.)
| TBax wrote: | | …you will need to prove there are multiple archangels Biblically. You cannot do it because the Bible only refers to one. |
Ya didn’t quite finish that book on logic did you? I don’t need to prove there are multiple archangels, all I need to do is show that the specific mention of one doesn’t preclude the possible existence of others. But the Bible doesn’t refer to only one archangel (as you’ve stated), it only refers to one by name. The Bible has two references to “archangel.” One reference uses the name Michael but the other is left unnamed, and the second reference seems to principally address the vocal qualities of the creatures in question, rather than identify any one particular archangel.
However, if Jude (who mentions Michael by name) believed in the sanctity of the Book of Enoch enough to quote from it (verse 14 and 15), don’t you think Jude would also have believed the passages in this book which list more than one archangel?
Have you ever read the Book of Enoch?
Or are you basing your entire argument upon the Roman Catholic Authority to canonize scripture?
Yehushuan
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1969
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
composer,
| comkposer wrote: | | Earlier TBax, you claimed that your ' Satan ' was the chief angel = chief messenger and the chief prince, |
You are going to need to show my quote. You are just making that up, or remembering it totally wrong. 
| composer wrote: | | However TBax, your other testimony proves you totally contradict yourself and you have proven yourself totally incapable of even understanding 'what you think you believe to be true' only to then totally contradict yourself. |
Yes. I have seen how "I prove myself wrong".
| composer wrote: | #1: Let us use your own analogy -
Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is my Satan an angel? Yes! ('cos I said so)
Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
You TBax are obviously the only one very confused?
You have just disproved that Michael is necessarily Jesus, thank you very much! |
Was that suppose to make the least bit of sense??? The analogy I used was to show "prince" and "angel" aren't synonomous. The conclusion you drew from your analogy is total nonsense.
Yes, you proved something all right.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1969
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Y,
List the archangels recorded in the Bible. You'll only find one called "the archangel".
| Y wrote: | | And don't be so quick to dismiss the designation that John the Baptist is "the angel", because that is precisely what the Greek text calls him, |
I didn't dispute that. The greek "aggelos" can mean "angel" or "messenger". Yes, John was indeed that "messenger" that was to prepare the way for Jesus, the messiah.
I find it amazing that you continue to pretend you know what you are talking about. 
| Y wrote: | | I strongly doubt you’re the man able to do so. |
No, not me. But you are the one to do that. You playing this game like you know what you are talking about is not working. 
| Y wrote: | | Ya didn’t quite finish that book on logic did you? I don’t need to prove there are multiple archangels, all I need to do is show that the specific mention of one doesn’t preclude the possible existence of others. |
No I don't. I agree my definite article point isn't definitive, but does indicated it. The fact that archangel is only in the singular form in scripture is indicative of there only being one.
| Quote: | | The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. |
You are the one that doubts there is only one. The Bible gives no indication to that effect. It does indicate there is only one, if not by the term "the archangel" then by the fact no other angel is scripturally designated or revealed as such. The Bible tells us what we need to know and only indicates one archangel. 
| Y wrote: | However, if Jude (who mentions Michael by name) believed in the sanctity of the Book of Enoch enough to quote from it (verse 14 and 15), don’t you think Jude would also have believed the passages in this book which list more than one archangel?
|
No. A major assumption on your part. The Book of Enoch wasn't inspired, but God's word including Jude was.
Enoch may have recorded information that the Book of Enoch borrowed and embellished. This information of what Enoch actually wrote was available to Jude as well.
A common source could have furnished the basis for the statement in the inspired letter as well as in the apocryphal book. You do realize the Book of Enoch wasn't actually written by Enoch, don't you???
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: J.W's |
|
|
[quote="TBax"]composer,
| comkposer wrote: | | Earlier TBax, you claimed that your ' Satan ' was the chief angel = chief messenger and the chief prince, |
| TBax wrote: | | You are going to need to show my quote. You are just making that up, or remembering it totally wrong. :roll: |
So you now back-flip and deny that your alleged satan was as close to God as can be and wanted to be like God and wasn't content with its highest position and started a war to establish itself instead of God as supreme and chief messenger?
Further more you say now that you don't believe it to be the 'chief messenger' of disobedience with its alleged army of like minded eveil followers?
Thus you yourself have admitted you believe there are more than one chief messengers i.e. Michael and your silly Satan, that's TWO TBax that YOU espouse.
Therefore as far as you have always been concerned, you have believed in TWO archangels i.e. chief messengers but now say you back-flip and say you can only find one in the Bible. Of course nicely proving my point again that your Satan exists in your J.W mindset and not legitimately in the Bible.
| composer wrote: | | However TBax, your other testimony proves you totally contradict yourself and you have proven yourself totally incapable of even understanding 'what you think you believe to be true' only to then totally contradict yourself. |
| TBax wrote: | | Yes. I have seen how "I prove myself wrong". |
That's promising. I'll keep going then.
| composer wrote: | #1: Let us use your own analogy -
Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is my Satan an angel? Yes! ('cos I said so)
Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
You TBax are obviously the only one very confused?
You have just disproved that Michael is necessarily Jesus, thank you very much! |
| TBax wrote: | | Was that suppose to make the least bit of sense??? The analogy I used was to show "prince" and "angel" aren't synonomous. The conclusion you drew from your analogy is total nonsense. |
Well your analogy and evidence I quoted demonstrates you think they are synonymous and they are not at the same time which is pretty well your track record.
| TBax wrote: | | Yes, you proved something all right. :roll: |
I know and that is why I keep going and watching your claims capitulate along the way.
Oh yes and Heb. 1: 5 & 1:13 decimate you regardless whilst you waffle on with your other none sense and back-flips.
You have lost!
BTW: Can't wait to move onto your 'drowned spirits'.
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastor2022
Moderator
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 727
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
When a poster asks that their user name be used as given, please do not change it in your posts. This is against board rules and is only common courtesy.
4) Respect your fellow members. No personal attacks or demeaning language |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1969
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| composer wrote: | Well your analogy and evidence I quoted demonstrates you think they are synonymous and they are not at the same time which is pretty well your track record.
|
You are perhaps the silliest person I've seen on this board.
Me proving "prince" and "angel" are not synonomous proves I think they are synonomous???
Dude, you are way to silly for me to respond seriously.
Track record.
| composer wrote: | | BTW: Can't wait to move onto your 'drowned spirits'. |
I seriously hope you are joking with all you posts. The alternative doesn't speak well of you.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: J.W's |
|
|
#1: Let us use TBax' own analogy -
Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)
Is my Satan an angel? Yes!
Tbax deduces - Does that mean prince means angel? NO!
synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; associated with (his name is synonymous with terror). (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD)
And still TBax denies they are synonymous but it is proven by his own analogy that they are?
- - - - -
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (Heb. 1: 5) KJV
This proves that no angel was ever God's begotten son.
This therefore proves that Michael is not Jesus.
- - - - -
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. {again...: or, when he bringeth again} (Heb. 1: 6) KJV
So did your Michael obey and worship his other self?
- - - - -
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (Heb. 1:13) KJV
This confirms again that NO angel was ever asked to sit at God's right hand until God subdues all its enemies.
It is the primary function of angels to do God's bidding including suppressing God's enemies on God's behalf. Not God suppress the angels enemies on their behalf? -
Bless ye the LORD, all [ye] his hosts; [ye] ministers of his, that do his pleasure. (Psalm 103:21) KJV (My Bold)
Your 'logic' contradicts this by claiming that your alleged angel jesus = Michael, has ' God ' suppressing its enemies (Heb. 1:13) instead of your alleged angel jesus = Michael suppressing its enemies on God's behalf? as per Psalm 103:21 KJV
- - - - -
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; . . . (Luke 20:36) KJV
So how was your Michael able to die?
- - - - - -
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; 11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:9 - 11) KJV
So when Michael's name is mentioned does your jesus get annoyed at being called by his lesser name Michael?
When Jesus' name is mentioned, how does your Michael bend his knee and bow, considering that your jesus = michael both share the same knees? (vs. 10)
When Jesus' name is mentioned, how does your Michael use his tongue to confess to your jesus = michael when they both share the same tongue? (vs. 11)
Thank you
Last edited by composer2005 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2740
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | List the archangels recorded in the Bible. You'll only find one called "the archangel". |
Again you abuse the language. The assumption of uniqueness inherent in the way you wrote your sentence (with the definite article as emphatic) is not supported in the Greek language.
| TBax wrote: | | The greek "aggelos" can mean "angel" or "messenger". |
And how do you know this if you forbid translators from looking at how Greek words are used in other texts and other religious literature? Are you sure that Christian use was not only limited to mean “messenger”?
| TBax wrote: | | The Bible gives no indication to that effect. It does indicate there is only one… |
Indicate? No. Name? Yes. The New Testament text has only one reference where a name is directly associated with the noun ‘archangel.’ (It may be helpful for you to review the definition of “indicate”.)
And given this quote:
| TBax wrote: | | No I don't. I agree my definite article point isn't definitive, but does indicated it. The fact that archangel is only in the singular form in scripture is indicative of there only being one. |
It may be helpful for you to at least proof read your posts, if not take a course in English grammar. The text is in “singular form” because it was talking about a single archangel, not about archangels in general. Were I to talk about the car in my driveway, I too would use words in singular form. To conclude that my using “singular form” words were meant to “indicate” that only one car exists in the universe is a leap into linguistic lunacy.
| TBax wrote: | | Quote: | | The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. |
|
Dude, you're losing it. This text is not found in any post I made.
| TBax wrote: | | The Book of Enoch wasn't inspired, but God's word including Jude was. |
Says who?
TBax, you seem to be unaware that the Roman Catholic Church selected the books that were compiled into the New Testament Canon, which you say is God’s word.
Perhaps the Catholics made a mistake in excluding the Book of Enoch from what Protestants call the Apocrypha? And if they didn’t make a mistake, how can you acquiesce to the RC declaration that Jude is inspired, yet reject the RC declaration that there are three Archangels mentioned in the Bible?
But you missed the point. Jude certainly didn’t know the Roman Catholic Church would declare his short epistle to be scripture. The question is what did JUDE consider scripture, and since he actually quoted from the Book of Enoch, it’s certain he considered this scripture to have the authority of inspired scripture like Ezekiel or Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14), or 1 Maccabees and Tobit.
| TBax wrote: | | You do realize the Book of Enoch wasn't actually written by Enoch, don't you??? |
Says who? You do realize that 1 Timothy wasn’t actually written by Paul, don’t you?
Yehushuan
(not 'Y')
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1969
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Y,
| Yehu wrote: | | Indicate? No. Name? Yes. |
Ok. Show were the Bible says there are other archangels.
| Yehu wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | The greek "aggelos" can mean "angel" or "messenger". |
And how do you know this if you forbid translators from looking at how Greek words are used in other texts and other religious literature? |
How do I know? What difference does it make. It is true.
Forbid translators??? What??? You have it wrong. 
| Yehu wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | Quote: | | The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. |
|
Dude, you're losing it. This text is not found in any post I made. |
Dude your losing it. I didn't say "Y" wrote.
| Yehu wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | The Book of Enoch wasn't inspired, but God's word including Jude was. |
Says who? |
Which part. Jude being inspired, or the Book of Enoch not.
| Yehu wrote: | | yet reject the RC declaration that there are three Archangels mentioned in the Bible? |
I would believe it if it were actually in the Bible. It's not.
The Bible had it's form before it was "officially cannonized" by the RC. The RC did add a few apocryphal books, and Enoch wasn't one of them.
| Yehu wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | You do realize the Book of Enoch wasn't actually written by Enoch, don't you??? |
Says who? |
I don't know? Maybe the fact that Enoch didn't live over 3,000 years.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1969
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
composer,
Against the understanding of the entire world, you have proved that "prince" and "angel" are synonymous!!!
Well, in that case, since Jesus is a prince that makes him an angel!
Since Satan is a prince, that makes him an angel!
Good work! You just disproved two of your assumptions by making "prince" and "angel" synonyms.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2740
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
TBax, I have requested to be addressed as Yehu or Yehushuan. Your disrespect in this regard is highly disappointing, and unfortunately says much about your character.
| TBax wrote: | | Yehu wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | The Book of Enoch wasn't inspired, but God's word including Jude was. |
Says who? |
Which part. Jude being inspired, or the Book of Enoch not. |
Thank you for kindly avoiding the question. Which 'part' doesn't matter. If you had an answer for either you could have written it. That you didn't, also says quite a lot. Specifically that you have no idea why you say the Bible is the “Word of God”.
| TBax wrote: | | The Bible had it's form before it was "officially cannonized" by the RC. |
I would suggest you take a course in early church history. Allow me to recommend: The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Dr. Bruce Metzger, Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987.
The “form” of the Bible was still an invention of Orthodox Ecclesia (to thwart Gnosticism). If you cannot embrace Catholic Authority with regards to matters of salvation, you cannot embrace Catholic Authority with regards to what can or cannot be identified as “inspired.” If one makes claims to Divine Providence regarding inspiration (that God kept the Catholics “on track” with the Bible) then this same assertion ought to have more weight with regards to their doctrines of salvation, since the salvation of Man is quite more important than God’s vanity to produce a book.
| TBax wrote: | | The RC did add a few apocryphal books, and Enoch wasn't one of them. |
And again you have this backwards. The Protestants (specifically the Anglican Church) removed the apocrypha. It was a certain segment of Judaism that considered Enoch not to be scripture. Then again, other segments, like Jude's synagogue, did. (Please note the argument against “Divine Providence” applies here as well. If God could guide the Jews to preserve the OT canon, then God should have guided the Jews with regards to their own Messiah from whence salvation comes.)
So again, thank you. I was not aware that JW’s conceded ecclesiastical authority to anyone, let alone the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the Jews. Your post has enlightened me. These three must then have more authority since you depend upon them for your canon. (But if you consider the Roman Catholic Church to have made mistakes before, why couldn’t exclusion of the Book of Enoch be one of them?)
Regardless, it becomes obvious that you avoided my prior point (having no answer I presume). Again, Jude certainly didn’t know the Catholic Church would declare his short epistle to be scripture, nor that you would embrace the authority of the Catholic Church in their declaration that Jude is inspired. But here’s the real question (once more):
Did JUDE consider the Book of Enoch to be scripture? Since he actually quoted from it, as did quite a number of Church Fathers from the first century, it’s obvious he did – that the early church (proto-orthodox) considered this text inspired. The early “form” of the Bible had this book in it (along with the Shepherd of Hermas and other texts) so you cannot appeal to any prior “form” without actually accepting these books as inspired.
Now since I don’t recognize any spiritual authority within the Catholic Church, and reject their assertion that Jude is inspired, I can readily show that scripture doesn’t name ANY archangel.
By the way, the only passage in the New Testament besides Jude that uses the word 'Archangel' is: (1Th 4:16 KJV). And at the risk of repeating myself, did you even read this verse?
New World Translation: “… because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
Allow me to point out that while the use of a definite article cannot establish singular uniqueness, use of an indefinite article DOES indicate that there is more than one (and this is from your own translation).
Yehushuan
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1969
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yehu,
I don't know what your purpose is here. If you want to believe Jude wasn't inspired, that is up to you. It doesn't matter what Jude knew about the RC when he wrote that letter. The same could be said about all the letters in the NT. God has the ability to preserve His word. What is it about Jude that makes you think it is not inspired?
The only proof you can give for multiple archangels is through a multitude of assumptions with no legitimate backing. I am not saying the Book of Enoch is inspired, but I did read through the Book of Enoch and I saw "the 7 archangles" and "the 4 archangels" in the chapter headings but never in the actual text. Just curious, have you seen it make such claims in the actual text? If so where?
| Yehu wrote: | | The early “form” of the Bible had this book in it (along with the Shepherd of Hermas and other texts) so you cannot appeal to any prior “form” without actually accepting these books as inspired. |
Not true! That is false reasoning. Scripture is God breathed. If God chose to include information from another source that doesn't make the source inspired, just the section included in the Bible.
| Yehu wrote: | | I was not aware that JW’s conceded ecclesiastical authority to anyone, let alone the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the Jews. |
That was very composeresque. You read a sentence and draw a warped conclusion. Using tools like references or translative sorces is not conceding "ecclesiastical authority".
--
1 Thess 4:16
Yes, Jesus has the commanding call of an archangel. Would Jesus voice by liken to someone lesser in authority to himself. The chief messenger indeed has the voice of chief messenger. Jesus is indeed the chief messenger, as he is actually called "the Word of God". The indefinite article at 1 Thess 4 is added to flow in english, as the greek doesn't contain indefinite articles. At 1 Thess 4:16 the word archangel is to be rendered in the singular as well. Hence, the indefinite article in english isn't indicative of multiple archangels.
Literally: The Lord in shout-of-command in voice OF-chief-messenger
You can believe your assumptions. You haven't proven anything to me, other then that you cried into your pillow because I called you "Y" instead of "Yehu". So easily offended??? Do you know what the Bible says about that?
Ecc 7:9 Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.
I am sorry. I guess I should have realized you would be offended by "Y". 
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
