Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Andrew,
    
    What is your source that Christ was fully human before his human birth?
    Is Christ fully human today?  What is your source?
    
                                     Patricia

Hi Patricia,

The Bible, where the three persons of the trinity are fully involved in 
creation, as well as in maintaining it until the judgement, and the 
fulfillment of all things, as well as the Christophanies, also Jesus'
indication that He existed before Abraham.

							Andrew

    Did Jesus indicate that he existed in his human form at the beginning
    of time and that he knew Abraham in his human form?
    
    Does Jesus exist today in his human form?
    
    BCV please?

    .278
    
    I don't have a "text answer" for you Patricia.  But since when is time
    of any relevance to the Lord?  He was, is, and has been forever and
    ever.  He was not part of a spatial explosion.
    
    The answer in my "human reasoning", which counts for little, is Yes!

In John 8:58, Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am".

In John, Jesus is sometimes referred to as 'The Word'.  As in John 1:1-3:

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
   was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through Him all things were 
   made; without Him nothing was made that has been made."

Jesus is generally understood to have met Abraham personally, for instance,
in the Christophany of Genesis 18, where one of the three visitors is 'the
LORD' (18:10), renewing his promise to Abraham. 

Obviously there are too many for me to enter them all here just now...!

Jesus now exists in His human form, raised from the dead, seated at the
right hand of God, in heaven.  Colossians 2:9, 2 Timothy 2:8, Ephesians
2:6, Colossians 3:1, Revelation 1:1,5,12-16... 
I'm not sure for which aspects you're requesting scriptural support, but I 
think the above should cover most aspects of your qestion.  If you are 
asking for verses supporting the resurrection, the most vivid are those 
where the grieving disciples actually meet him - as in John 20.

								Andrew

Well, I'm sorry, but you are talking about a whole different religion if
you don't accept the biblical and creedal teaching that Jesus was conceived
by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary.

God's Word, God the Son, existed before the conception, and the conception
happened at a specific point in time.  Yet Jesus was made human _by_ that
conception.  Even if he appeared in human form to Abraham, this does not
change the fact that God entered the world just like ever other human.

This is a very important concept in soteriology -- God had to _become_
man; had to _enter_into_the_world_ in the same way all humans do, in
order to be _fully_ human.

Sure, God could have just said "poof-I'm a fully grown 32-year-old
Palestinian Jew", but he didn't.  He entered the world by forming a
hypostatic union with humanity at the very moment of his conception.
And he chose Mary to be his mother.  Not his half-mother, because he
isn't half-man and half-God, but his full mother, because he is fully
man and fully God.

And now, he is still fully human, in heaven, with a glorified resurrected
body, as we all will have when he raises all of us on the last day.

/john

    Patricia, look through Strong's concordance for every occurrence of
    "Angel of the Lord" in the O.T.

    Mike

    	Re talking with "dead people":
    
    	What happened at the transfiguration on the top of the mountain? 
    	Who was talking with Jesus?  I thought that at that point Elijah
    	and Moses were already dead...

    I agree with John's answer regarding the preconceived Jesus.  The Logos
    from John that was with God from the beginning was not in human form.  
    Jesus became human as every human becomes human.  Jesus' human body
    died.  There is an apparent contradiction which I'm sure someone can
    clarify for me regarding what happened to the physical body of Jesus. 
    The Gospels make it appear as if the physical body was resurrected
    while Paul in 1 Corinthian says flesh and blood will not inherit the
    Kingdom of heaven, and it is a spiritual body that is resurrected.
    
    Jesus also tells the pharisees that there will be no husband and wife
    in heaven.  Does that also mean that there will be no mother and father
    in heaven as well?
    
                                 Patricia
    

The physical body of Jesus was resurrected, as we all will be, with our
bodies.  And it is now in heaven, at the right hand of the Father.

This was not a mere conjuring trick with bones; and it would have been
possible even if burning at the stake rather than crucifixion had been
the method of execution.

The glorified, resurrected bodies we will all have will not just be
"spirit" bodies; we will be able to touch and feel, says the bible.

Much beyond that is speculation, such as everyone being perfectly healthy
and about 30 years old (physically).

/john

.283 - Joe,  Elijah and Moses were not in their mortal bodies; they were 
not being consulted or prayed to; they were 'talking with' Jesus.  bear in 
mind also thath Jesus was in [some measure of] His glorified body at that 
point, and the disciples spoke only to Jesus; not to Moses and Elijah.

Re the resurrection body; this is covered in some detail in 1 Corinthians 
15.  The body we shall have is not the mortal body we now have; this cannot 
dwell in eternity; the one we shall have will, and is designed for 
eternity.  It seems to be related in appearance to the body we have here, 
as Jesus was (eventually) recognised, both in his earthly visits after the 
resurrection, and in Revelation 1, in His full glory, by John, overwhelmed 
as he was.

This also is the reason that the manner of death etc is not significant, 
and cannot detrimentally affect our eternal body, as John pointed out in 
.285.  The resurrection is giving a new body.  Not resuscitating the old 
body (as happened, for instance, to Lazarus, in John 11:43-44).

Patricia, what Biblical basis do you have for maintaining that Jesus did
not have a human form prior to the New Testament, when the Old Testament
witness indicates that He had? 

.284 � Jesus also tells the pharisees that there will be no husband and wife
.284 � in heaven.  Does that also mean that there will be no mother and father
.284 � in heaven as well?
Actually in Matthew 22:30, what He says is that 'at the resurrection,
people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the
angels in heaven' 
Human relationships based on the old mortal body are no longer relevant in
heaven.  Physical procreation is a thing of the temporal world, and the 
birth of new people (an integral function of marriage) is as relevant as 
death, where there is neither!  So there will be no new mothers and 
fathers, in that sense.  However, the entry of the elect into heaven 
commences with the marriage supper of the Lamb, where the church is His 
bride.  We eneter a new dimension; a new order of existance, as is pointed 
out in Revelation  21:4

If you are asking whether we will be aware of each others identity, and of
our earthly relationships and interdependencies, opinions vary on that one.
I personally think we shall be aware of who we were, and know each other,
partly because of the Moses and Elijah episode at the transfiguration. 


								Andrew

    Andrew,
    
    I agree with you the Paul indicates in 1 Cor 15 that the physical body
    will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  He specifically refers to the
    spiritual body that will be resurrected.
    
    I do not know where you infer from the old testament witness that Jesus
    was physically present.  When he says he knew abraham in the N.T. I
    believe he was referring to knowing him spiritually just as God knows
    each of us spiritually.
    
    Paul does say in Romans 1 that jesus was physically descendent from Flesh
    and spiritually from God.  Jesus physical and spiritual natures, as
    identified in Romans have separate origins.
    
                                          Patricia           
    

Congratulations, Patricia, on what I deem to be a noble snarf - 287.287. 
If there is such a thing!  The more so because it is totally in the course
of noting, and not at all forced! ;-) 

In the Old Testament there are various visitations by 'The Angel of the 
LORD', which is generally recognised to be the LORD Jesus, the second 
person of the trinity of the Godhead.  One of these is in Genesis 18, as I 
mentioned, where Abraham is visited by what he sees as 'three men' (:2), 
though we are informed that one is the LORD (:1, :10, :13).  It is also the 
LORD who continues the conversation with Abraham, in his request for Sodom, 
while the other two, who are apparently angels, go on to Sodom, where they 
meet Lot (19:1 - 'the two', continuing from where the narrative had left 
them).

Jesus was also definitely instrumental in creation, as is identified in 
Colossians 1:16 "...by Him all things were created..."- the whole passage 
is unmistakably refering to the LORD Jesus; Hebrews 1:2 "...his Son ... 
through Whom He made the universe.."  etc

The verse 'before Abraham was, I am" is also especially significant in its
use of the name of God. 

Now, I don't suggest that Jesus made a habit of visiting Abraham, or knew
him from casual daily acquaintance as, say, neighbours.  Rather that He
knew him from a personal experience, as well as knowing his heart, as he
knows the heart of all men. In that sense I agree with you that Jesus knew
Abraham spiritually, but he also knew him from personal dialogue, in
meeting, as in Genesis 18.  It was a two-way friendship, so that Abraham
could be described as 'the friend of God' (James 2:23, 2 Chronicles 20:7,
Isaiah 41:8). 

								Andrew

    Andrew,
    
    So your belief that Jesus had both a divine nature and human nature
    eternally and not from his birth to Mary is based on your belief that
    one of the three men visiting Abraham was the human Jesus and the other
    two were angels in human form?
    
    I'm not questioning the preexistant Logos/wisdom.  I am only
    questioning the preexistence of the human aspect of Jesus.
    
    Is that correct?
    
    
    Also what is the relationship Of God, Christ, the elect after the
    resurrection.  If the elect will all have a ressurection like Jesus'
    and they all become children of God and joint heirs with Christ, with
    Christ as the firstborn of a large family, then what conclusions can we
    come to regarding God the Father, Christ, the Elect in heaven.  What
    does it mean to be the Brothers of Christ, joint heirs, and children of God
    the Father.
    
    It was a great snarf and I did not even realize it.
    
    
                                           Patricia

The visit Jesus paid to Abraham does not provide any evidence against
his human nature having been derived from Mary, his mother.

Nor does it say that his human nature existed before the Incarnation.

During that visit, Our Lord could have taken human form in a supernatural way,
just as the angels did.  Or he could have appeared in his post-resurrection
body.  The bible does not answer this question.

Nor does it answer the question about the bodies of the other two visitors.

/john

	Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord
	teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
	Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
	truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul
	and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as
	regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance
	with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart
	from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before
	the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men
	and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer
	(Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
	recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,
	without division, without separation; the distinction of
	natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the
	characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming
	together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or
	separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
	begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets
	from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
	himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed
	down to us.

Patricia,

I would say that my understanding that Jesus' human nature is eternal, as 
well as His divine nature is based on the collective teaching of the Old 
and New Testaments.  In the New Testament, it is spelled out as fact (eg 
the Colossians and Hebrews references).  In the Old Testament we meet the 
person of the LORD Jesus in various places.  If the New Testament did not 
explicitly identify His involvement in creation, etc, we might be uncertain 
about the Christophanies.

Your point about our eternal relationship with God the Father and with Jesus 
is a big one.  We know that we shall be like Him (1 John 3:2, and many 
other verses).  I take this to mean like the glorified Christ, as in the 
transfiguration, or rather, as in Revelation 1.  But I take a significant 
part of this as meaning that sin is eradicated, so that we actually are 
freed to think totally purely.  That would mean our thoughts could become
fact, just as God's word of command created, originally.  This last is
speculation, but I include it to try to express how far the reality of
heaven is beyond the limits of our temporal, fallen understanding.  We can
only start to imagine, and know that the reality will be infinitely better.
The functions and activities of heaven are also indescribable, but 
infinitely desirable, in that they reflect the ultimate (as opposed to 
temporal) purpose for our existance.  Both reflect God's glory, but how 
this is done in our fallen bodies is far short of how it is worked out in 
the perfected and permanent result.

However, returning to the relationship side, yes, we will be co-heirs with
Christ, and also (making it even more complicated) making up (as 'the
church') the bride of Christ.  So God will be our Father, in that we inherit
His character (or at least, the equivalent of inheriting the genes of our
human parents), and in that sense will be like Him, knowing and expressing
the perfect will. 

I'm not sure whether I've addressed the relationship issue as you meant it:
� What does it mean to be the Brothers of Christ, joint heirs, and children
� of God the Father. 
That is so big a question, I doubt anyone can do much more than say, yes, 
all the saved will be glorified members of God's family for eternity.

Ah!  Unless you mean the question in the context of there being no marrying
in heaven? - that means no human intermarriage.  There is then solely the 
spiritual family of God.  Whether there is a dimension in which that 
multiplies (which is different from human procreation, and not covered by 
Jesus' instruction) we are not told.  My personal belief is that this is 
so, but I must emphasise that I have no Biblical justification for that 
view!  Only some reasoning that convinces me! - at the moment ;-)

						God bless
								Andrew

    Hey Andrew,
    
    Not fair!
    
    What about my 287.287 snarf!
                                             Patricia

My sincere apologies ... I thought about that one, but had no answer :-(

Unless we move all the replies down so that you get 765.765 ? ;-)
or even 765.567 .... or perhaps that's getting too esoteric!

							Andrew

 That was the whole plan..get rid of that snarf! ;-)

� That was the whole plan..get rid of that snarf! ;-)

What!?  The only sincere snarf of the sentury????

Never!  I'd almost put them all back again.  Almost....

							Andrew

      Hi,
    
        Just read a little bit (not finished).
    
        Andy, are you saying that Jesus was human before the incarnation?
        It seems your proof is that He definitely met people as a human
        before the incarnation.
    
        If that is your proof, the following is necessary as well.
    
        Angels are human beings.  For they have done precisely the same
        thing (met people as human beings).
    
        On Elijah and Moses.
    
        I believe Moses was bodily resurrected by Christ who is Michael
        who is the Head of all angels who is the chiefest bearer of a
        message.  (I am not saying He was a created angel.)  The word
        malek (Hebrew) and the corresponding Greek are more generic than
        that.  John the Baptist was called an angel.
    
        As a bearer of a message, Jesus would have to be the 'arche-
        bearer.'
    
        Elijah was translated.  
    
    							Tony

Hi Tony,

No, I maintain that Jesus never was an angel; that He was/is always God.
The fact that angels (including the archangel Michael), have served as
messengers during Old Testament times is irrelevant.  They appear in human 
form, but there is no suggestion that they are other than angels, and they 
are not to be worshipped (you need references?;-)

I presume you intended to say:
�        who is the Head over all angels who is the chiefest bearer of a
                         ^^^^
 - over them, as one different; not head of them, as chief among them.

The fact that Michael is actually an angel and not another name for the 
LORD Jesus is made clear in Jude verse 9, where Michael in dispute with the 
devil has to invoke the LORD's rebuke rather than accuse him directly.  
Note that the LORD Jesus did not suffer this restriction even when He was 
made '[for] a little lower than the angels' (Hebrews 2:7), as is seen, 
forinstance in Matthew 4:10-11.

								Andrew

    In the first chapter of Hebrews it is clear that Jesus is most
    certainly not an angel (Let all Gods angels worship him/To which of the
    angels did God ever say "Sit at my right hand....")
    
    Love
    Ben

      I believe Jesus is an angel in the generic (a biblical) sense.
      He was a Messenger.
    
      I believe Jesus is God and not a created being.
    
      I also believe Jesus resurrected Moses from the grave.
    
    						Tony

Hi Tony,

Jesus is more than a messenger.  He is the Message.  

There is too much misunderstanding on this subject to confuse it further by 
applying an unusual generic form of a normally specifically understood name.


								Andrew

    If Jesus were an angel He could not be our Kinsman Redeemer

      He's still a messenger Andrew.  Did not Jesus communicate a message
      to mankind?
    
      Is it not the voice of the Archangel that resurrects the dead and
      is it not also the voice of Christ?
    
    	voice of archangel resurrects dead.
        voice of Christ resurrects dead.
    
        Therefore voice of Christ = voice of archangel.
        Therefore Christ = Archangel
    
      Ben, why can't someone give a message and also be our kinsman
      Redeemer?
    
      Thats all angel means in the root Hebrew and Greek.  MESSENGER.
                                   
      I think you'd be benefitting by realizing that the root word
      for angel is more generic than 'heavenly created beings.'
    
      The root word means deliverer of a message.
    
      Of all that have delivered a message, Jesus is the Chiefest.
      And He is God.
    
    						Tony

Tony,

	Read my note! ;-)

						Andrew

    Tony,
    
    John the Baptist was the messenger, and Christ was the fulfilment of
    that message.  I think that perhaps there are some semantics here and
    not worthy of debate truly...but that is how I see it.
    
    I feel as though to place Christ as "messenger" waters down his
    position as the savior.
    
    Nancy

This is a terminology problem.

The word "angel" simply means messenger.  Just as "evangel" or "gospel" means
"good news".

However, there are angelic beings (i.e. beings created by God to be his
messengers).  Scripture speaks of nine ranks of these created beings:

	Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Virtues,
	Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.

At the time of St. Paul there was a highly developed angelology, which he
refers to in Colossians 1:16.

BTW, there are biblical examples of invocations of the angels:

	Bless ye the Lord, ye his angels, ....  (Ps 103:20)

	Praise ye him, all his angels, ... (Ps 148:2)

/john

      Hi Andrew,
    
        I cannot presently explain the rebuke part of the Jude
        text, but the weight I see regarding the voice part I
        brought forth carries much weight for me.
    
      Hi Nancy,
    
    	When I place Christ as "messenger", I do not mean to 
        imply that this is the only title I believe He has. 
        The Savior conception of Him is watered down only if one 
        requires that messenger is the sum total of His work.
    
        This I do not do.
    
        The message of the cross is the power of God.  Only the
        greatest message-Giver of all has ever given that message.
    
    						Tony

    See what happens when you spiritualize God's Word?
    
    Re: John the Baptist was a messenger
    
    I guess that means he was an angel too.
    
    Mike

      Yes, John the Baptist was an 'angel.'  Look up the Greek.
      
      This is not a case of spiritualizing God's word.  This
      is a case of sometimes going to the Hebrew and Greek, and
      from that, finding that the root Hebrew and Greek, from
      which the English 'angel' is translated, is more generic
      than that.
    
      Sometimes the very same word has described men and God.
    
      When you say, "I guess that means he was an angel too."
      It only shows that you fail to understand that the Hebrew
      and Greek are more generic than that.  Mike, it sometimes
      refers to angels.  It sometimes does not.
    
      When you say, "See what happens when you spiritualize God's 
      Word?" in connection with this dialogue...
    
      ...well its not for me to say how you came up with that
      one.
    
    						Tony

    
    If a word sometimes means angel and sometimes does not, how
    can you feel assured that when your are translating it to 
    mean angel that it actually does?
    
    In my understanding, angels are creating beings that 'live'
    in Heaven and occassionally are sent to earth by God to
    bring a message to a human person.  Are there any references
    in the Bible to angels actually being born and becoming
    human beings (referring to John the Baptist)?  Does this
    mean that all messengers are angels?  Is the UPS guy an
    angel? Just kidding.
    
    Of course, I am working at the same time as reading this
    string,  so I could have the whole conversation mixed up.
    If so, forgive me please.
    
    And, as far as the transitive property of spirituality goes:
    I am a Christian
    Andrew is a Christian
    Therefore:  I am Andrew
    
    According to my Algebra teacher, it does not work that way.
    
    Pam

Thank you Andrew, now I understand.  I thought I was geting confused, but I 
see now that I only thought I was confused, but I couldn't have been 
really, because I am

							Pam.

      Hi Pam,
    
        When you brought up the transitive property thing, were you
        referring to .31?
    
        I agree that the logic I used cannot always apply, however in
        the case of .31, the voice is highly specific, isn't it?!  I
        mean the dead hear a voice that resurrects them.  They 
        hear the voice of Christ and the voice of the archangel.
    
        Is the Bible trying to say that while the dead hear the voice
        of Christ, they just happen to also hear (in the background
        perhaps) the voice of a heavenly created angel?
    
        I just think its a LOT more plausible that the voices are one
        and the same.  That the word they hear is the creative word of
        God which has the power of the resurrection.
    
        IMO, I think the alternative interpretation is a stretch, i.e.
        that the dead happen to hear some other person's voice aside from
        Christ's.
    
        At that moment, Christ's word will be all they will hear.
    
        The word that is the power of the resurrection.
    
    							Tony
                

    Tony, the logic is faulty, as Pam and Andrew greatly showed (;-)),
    because of context.  Hebrew and Greek analysis are important to me as
    well, but context is still a higher priority.  John was not an angel,
    no matter what word was used.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        I am not saying John was an angel!  When I said 'angel', I
        simply meant to give the most popular English translation
        for the original Greek or to put another way - to stress 
        that the exact same Greek word which calls John the Baptist
        a messenger is precisely the same Greek word rendered 'angel.'
    
        I believe context is important.  Thats why I happen to believe
        Michael is Christ.  Because its the Archangel's word the dead
        will hear at the resurrection.  Also I believe Michael, when
        contesting with Satan over Moses, rose Moses up!  (Resurrected
        him.)
    
        And yes, I acknowledge not now having an explanation for the
        rebuke part.  But, so many times I have been perplexed with
        parts of the word.  I still find tremendous weight in the
        fact that the dead hear the word of the archangel AND in the
        fact that no scripture describing the event of the resurrection
        couples two voices at one time.  Such as voice of archangel and
        voice of Christ.  Its one voice when the event is mentioned.
    
        Thus I believe its the voice of the same Person who happens
        to have several titles.
    
    						Tony

    so now you're saying Michael is God instead of YHWH, despite the clear
    scriptural precedence for mankind not worshiping angels.  Jesus
    received worship, Michael and the other angels didn't.
    
    Spiritualizing the Bible is creating some real snares for you.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        Some 'malek's' are not the heavenly created angel type.
        (Malek being the Hebrew word sometimes rendered as angel.)
    
        Michael is a malek.  Michael NEED NOT BE a heavenly created
        angel.  He is a malek.
    
        I believe Michael is Yawheh because its His voice (I believe)
        which raises the dead and scripture says the voice of God 
        raises the dead.
    
        I don't really think I care to dialogue with you anymore.
        You have a habit of always being critical with me and I tire
        of it after awhile.
    
        If someone does not see that 'malek' is a messenger (whether
        man or God or the heavenly angels), it is fruitless to go on.
    
    						Tony

    Tony, I believe you're drastically missing the point.  Try a study on
    the nature of angels sometime and you'll see that Michael can't
    possibly be Christ.  Here's a few Biblical pointers to go on as a
    start:
    
    Nature of Angels
    ----------------
    1. created beings - Colossians 1:16
    2. spiritual beings without bodies - Hebrews 1:4, 1 Corinthians 15:39-40
    3. have free agency, some choose Satan - Revelation 12, 2 Peter 2:4
    4. Jesus is above them all - Hebrews 1:4-13
    5. refuse worship - Colossians 2:18-19
    6. never pray to them - 1 Timothy 2:5
    7. A minor point (but the rest should be sufficient) is that there 
       appears to be more than one archangel.  While the divinely-inspired 
       Bible seems to say there is only one, the apocryphal Book of Enoch 
       names Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel (9:1, 40:9) and numbers 
       archangels at 7 total (20:1-7; cross-reference with Tobit 12:15).
    
    More Characteristics of Angels in General
    -----------------------------------------
    8. present at creation - Job 34:4-7
    9. have mighty power - Psalm 103:20-21, 2 Thessalonians 1:7
    10. angels eat - Psalm 78:25
    11. God's servants/messengers - Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Corinthians 11:14
        (won't contradict God's Word!)
    12. always masculine - Job 1:6, 38:7, Genesis 6:2
    13. don't marry - Matthew 22:30
    14. innumerable number serving God (Lord of Hosts) - Hebrews 12:22, 
        2 Kings 6:16
    15. different rankings & positions (5 ranks) - Ephesians 1:21,
        Colossians 1:16, 1 Peter 3:22.  Thrones, Dominions, Authorities,
        Principalities, and Powers.
    16. can take on human form - Genesis 18:2, Hebrews 13:2
    17. interested in our salvation - 1 Peter 1:12, Luke 15:7
    
    Types of Angels
    ---------------
    18. Seraphim - Isaiah 6:2.  Only place where the Bible mentions them. 
       Some claim that Seraphim and Cherubim aren't actually angels.
    19. Cherubim - Genesis 3:24, Ezekiel 1:5, 10:9, 28:12, Isaiah 37:16.
    20. Archangels - Jude 9, Daniel 10:21 (Michael is spiritual warfare
        guardian over Israel), Daniel 12.
    21. Angels - Hebrews 1
    
    Ministry of Angels
    ------------------
    22. minister, serve, strengthen others - Hebrews 1:14, Luke 22:43
    23. they encourage - Acts 27:23-24
    24. protect us from danger & harm - Genesis 19:11,16, 2 Kings 6:17,
        Psalm 91:11-12, Acts 5:19, 12:7, Daniel 10:20, 6:22, Revelation 12:7.
    25. escort us to Christ when we die - Luke 16:22
    26. watch conduct of the church - 1 Corinthians 11:10, 4:9, 1 Timothy 5:21
    27. assist God in executing His righteous judgment - Acts 12:23, 2
        Corinthians 10:10, 77 references in Revelation.
    28. give us direction & guidance - Acts 10:3, 8:26, John 16:13 (they
        are never spiritual teachers!)

      Mike,
    
        Not all malek's are angels!!!
    
        Don't you get it?
    
        Jesus could be Michael and yet need not be a kind of angel
        you are talking about!!
    
        John the Baptist was referred to as the same Greek from 
        which we interpret 'angel' (I believe its angello).
    
        On what basis are you comfortable that John the Baptist
        need not be an angel, but Michael must be???
    
        You're giving me this big list about angels all the while
        I don't believe Michael is one.  So where is the relevence?
    
        You'd have to prove to me that Michael is an angel and if
        you are certain He is from the usage of 'malek', you completely
        miss the point.
    
    						Tony

    Tony,

    I happen to agree that not all malek/angelos are the 'spirit beings' we
    call Angels.

    I hesitate, however, to draw such a firm conclusion that
    Michael=Yahweh/Yeshua. I understand, at least in part, your frustration
    at the insistance that malek/angelos should always be rendered as
    'spirit being'-Angels, rather than the more general "messenger".

    Perhaps the word 'angel', like the word 'gentleman' and the word
    'christian' (and many many others) have been so watered down by the
    world that they are almost devoid of their original meaning.

    Concentrating on the english word angel for a moment. The immediate
    mind-picture that many have today (and many of us carry with us into
    Christianity) is of clouds and harps and such - and usually human
    beings having been 'transformed' somehow into an angel. And yet there
    is _no_ Biblical support for such an idea.

    Perhaps we need a new word for 'malek/angelos' as a "mere" (if I may
    use such a word) "Messenger"?

    Love in Jesus,

		   Harry

      Hi Harry,
    
        I have NO problem if people do not share my belief that Michael
        is Christ is Jehovah.  I *DO* have a problem when people keep
        insisting that I am thus implying that Christ is a created
        angel.
    
        Michael does not appear very often.  I mean...is it that big
        a deal?  
    
        I just happen to believe that as the dead hear the voice of the
        Archangel at the time of the resurrection and as elsewhere, Christ
        says the dead hear His voice, and as elsewhere malek can be con-
        clusively shown to refer to Christ, that Michael is Christ is God.
    
        Thats all.
    
        						Thanks Harry,
    
    							Tony

>        Not all malek's are angels!!!
    
    Tony, I don't have Logos or Vine's.  Give me a verse where "malek" is
    used so I can check my Strong's.
    
>        Jesus could be Michael and yet need not be a kind of angel
>        you are talking about!!
    
    Jude 9 still presents you with a major problem.  It contradicts
    everything you are saying.
    
>        On what basis are you comfortable that John the Baptist
>        need not be an angel, but Michael must be???
    
    John the Baptist had human parents, had a beginning and an end as a
    human.  Michael pre-existed with the other angels, is called an angel
    in the Bible, and is not human.
    
>        You're giving me this big list about angels all the while
>        I don't believe Michael is one.  So where is the relevence?
    
    Jude 9 says he is an angel.  The list is for what God's Word says about
    angels.
    
>        You'd have to prove to me that Michael is an angel and if
>        you are certain He is from the usage of 'malek', you completely
>        miss the point.
    
    Jude 9 is part of the infallible, inerrant, divinely inspired Word of
    God.  That is proof enough.
    
    Mike

>        I have NO problem if people do not share my belief that Michael
>        is Christ is Jehovah.  
    
    You have all the Jehovah Witness' cult to back you up.
    
    >                            I *DO* have a problem when people keep
>        insisting that I am thus implying that Christ is a created
>        angel.
    
    You can't have your cake and eat it too.  The Bible makes a clear
    distinction between Christ and the angels.  The Bible also says Michael
    is an angel.  By saying Michael is Christ, you complete distort the
    truth of God's Word and are forced to ignore a wealth of scripture. 
    Remember, context is important to you.  
    
>        Michael does not appear very often.  I mean...is it that big
>        a deal?  
    
    Yes it is.  And I gave you several Bible references why it is a big
    deal to God.  The divine author of the scriptures had the foreknowledge
    to see cults would try to make this association so He provided us with
    plenty of scripture to refute it.
    
>        I just happen to believe that as the dead hear the voice of the
>        Archangel at the time of the resurrection and as elsewhere, Christ
>        says the dead hear His voice, and as elsewhere malek can be con-
    
    When viewpoints like this contradict other Biblical passages, it is
    time to do some more homework and pray that God will show you the
    correct viewpoint.
    
>        clusively shown to refer to Christ, that Michael is Christ is God.
    
    This is blasphemy!

    In Daniel 10 we read of Jesus (in His pre-incarnate state) coming to
    Daniel. Jesus says in verse 13 "Michael, one of the chief princes, came
    to help me" This verse makes two things clear:
    
    	1 - Jesus and Michael are two different people
    
    	2 - Michael is simply one of the princes. If there are more than
    	    one prince on Michaels level then there must be more than one
    	    Christ (which is ridiculous). Michael is obviously placed,
    	    ranked with others of the same authority, below the level of
    	    the King of Kings and Lord of lords.
    
    Also, in the book of Revelation Michael is called Michael and Jesus is
    called Jesus. If they were one and the same why weren't they both given
    the same name????
    
    Michael is under Jesus authority the same as we are and the worship of
    angels is sin and blasphemy.
    
    Love
    Ben

      Hi Mike and Ben,
    
        Let me see if I understand this.
    
        Do you insist that an angel cannot be Christ and to suggest
        such is blasphemy???
    
        Could you get back to me on that?
    
    						Thanks and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

The distinction and superiority of Jesus over the messengers (generally
translated 'angels') is stressed in Hebrews 1, especially from verse 4. 

If by 'angel', you mean a created being, as is generally understood by the 
english term, then it is blasphemy to suggest that any created being, 
including angels, are God.

If by 'angel', you mean the general term for 'messenger' (which is not how
it is understood in general english because a better specific term applies)
then it is composed as too meaningless a question to have a valid answer.
It is like saying 'is it wrong to worship a man?'.  The general answer is 
"Yes".  But Jesus is fully man as well as fully God, and it is right to 
worship this man only.

							Andrew

      Andrew,
    
        Don't you see where I'm coming from?
    
        I know Harry does.  THANKS!
    
        For crying out loud, these guys are accusing me of blasphemy
        and of being a cultist WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SCRIPTURE'S USE
        OF THE TERM ANGEL.
    
        Either they cannot or they refuse to see the more generic 
        possibilities attributed to that term (angel).
    
        Thats where I'm coming from.
    
        I can probably guess where you are coming from Andrew.
    
        You believe Michael is a heavenly created angel, but you don't
        believe so ONLY on the basis that he is called an angel.  Based
        on OTHER texts, you have come to this conclusion.
    
        And you probably understand that I believe Michael is Jesus is
        God based on also realizing the generic nature of the term angel,
        but coming to the conclusion on OTHER scripture - notably the
        voice that the dead here upon the resurrection and the title
        of 'arche' which means head (I believe).
    
        I acknowledge tension with Jude and with Daniel.  Yes, Michael
        is called one prince of many and I can see how some would feel
        that is strong evidence that he is painted as an equal of many,
        but Jesus was also called 'son of man' yet was worshipped while
        on earth (as no other son of man was).
    
        You know what I'm saying Andrew.
    
        Well, at least I think Harry does.
    
    						Tony

    Tony,

    I _do_ see where you are coming from, and I sense your frustration too.
    :'(

    One problem we have here is in linguistics.

    To the late 20th Century western person, 'angel' commonly means "a
    spiritual being superior to man" (New Merriam-Webster - 1989 edition)
    [I would debate with them 'superior' ;') ]

    The etymology given is interesting (I quote) "Middle English from Old
    French from Latin _angelus_ from Greek _angelos_, literally
    _messenger_"  (well, I expanded the abbreviations ;')

    In a strict linguistic sense, Tony, you are correct (as mentioned above).

    [ I love etymological discussions :') ]

    However, I still hesitate to go that step with you that Michael is
    Jesus. The passage in I Thess (4:16) seems to imply a correlation
    between "The Lord" and the "voice of the archangel" ('arch', indeed
    being "leader" or "ruler", from the Greek "archon"). But the Daniel
    passages (ch10 and forward a little) imply more heavily that 'Michael'
    is 'one of many' and therefore a created being, rather than the Creator.
    Jude has this implication, too.

    On the 'voice of the archangel' bit. By way of an illustration, I can
    "shout" at my children with the 'voice of a Drill-Sergeant', but that
    it no way makes me a "Drill-Sergeant" ;')

    So, in a nut-shell. It is _not_ heretical to say that Jesus is a
    'malek/angelos', it _may_ be heretical to say that Jesus is 'Michael'.

    Harry

    Tony
    
    I'm sorry if you feel I am calling you a blasphemer, this is not a
    personal attack on you but a general statement regarding angel worship.
    I wholeheartedly agree with what Andrew has said in .53 and I cannot
    add to anything else that I (or Mike) have already written. I think,
    for the sake of peace, we should agree that both opinions have been
    stated, neither can accept the others point of view, and anyone unsure
    of which theology is true should ask a direct question relating to this
    subject. Otherwise we will just go round in circles and wind each other
    up. 
    
    Bless you bro'
    Love
    Ben

>        Either they cannot or they refuse to see the more generic 
>        possibilities attributed to that term (angel).
    
    or we only see God's literal Word, that's where I'm coming from.
    
>        I acknowledge tension with Jude and with Daniel.  Yes, Michael
    
    Then it's time to do some more homework.
    
>        is called one prince of many and I can see how some would feel
>        that is strong evidence that he is painted as an equal of many,
    
    Michael is always portrayed as some sort of military commander. 
    Gabriel is always portrayed as a Messianic messenger.  If you think
    about what the Bible says of heavenly beings, it's not like God to have
    just 1 of anything, excluding Himself.  While not canonized, it's
    interesting that the Book of Enoch references 7 archangels.  God's Word
    mentions only one archangel, but Daniel 10 seems to imply that the
    nations have one watching over God's people within those nations. 
    
>        but Jesus was also called 'son of man' yet was worshipped while
>        on earth (as no other son of man was).
    
    Son of Man is a Messianic title and is meant to be used that way, and
    not in the way you're suggesting here.
    
    Mike    

  Hi,

  Genesis 31:11-13a (KJV)
  And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I
  said, Here am I.
  And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which 
  leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for 
  I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee.
  I am the God of Beth-el...


  It was practically in passing that I mentioned believing that Michael
  is Christ.  Harry has offered an alternative interpretation for the
  voice of the archangel; I happen to presently hold to a different 
  one.  I have no problem with Jesus being mentioned as a prince in 
  the context of there being others.  He is not ashamed to call us
  brethren.  Perhaps Jesus is not ashamed to call angels brethren either.
  I just see Jesus as God, but also as relating to creation from where
  they are.

  This is all speculative of course.  My point is simply that Jesus is
  willing to reach creation as a brother.

  I don't quite understand why it is that people have an extremely hard
  time with one of my beliefs given one condition.  That in all honesty,
  I believe Michael is God having all the attributes of deity.

  Were I to ever believe Michael is not God, I could then never believe
  Christ is Michael.

  So, if I am to bear the reproach of being labeled a cultist and a
  blasphemer well so be it.

  I do however find it strange being linked with Witnesses who would never
  say that Michael is Jehovah-God.  Well, I guess when one wants to use
  the iron hand of bandying about 'cult', one might have a tendency to
  do whatever can be done to classify a person in whatever is deemed to be 
  most unattractive labels.

  I personally do not agree with the cult labeling too much.  I just
  figure the way to draw into the truth is with the love of Christ and
  my conviction is that people will really begin to know His voice when 
  they see the character of Christ shining from those who proclaim it.

						Tony

>  I don't quite understand why it is that people have an extremely hard
>  time with one of my beliefs given one condition.  That in all honesty,
    
    actually it isn't just this one.
    
>  I personally do not agree with the cult labeling too much.  I just
>  figure the way to draw into the truth is with the love of Christ and
>  my conviction is that people will really begin to know His voice when 
>  they see the character of Christ shining from those who proclaim it.
    
    Fair enough.  The truth is, however, is that you still make these
    claims despite the Bible disagreeing with you.  That is where my
    patience wears thin.  When there is an obvious contradiction between
    you and the Bible, as there is here, it's time to do some more homework
    and ask the Lord in prayer to give us some more understanding.
    
    Mike

    	re .60
    
    	Actually, you got in the last word.
    
    	No, actually I did.
    
    	Oh, nevermind...

    Okay, Joe and Tony both get the last word.

 Yep, they sure do!

    	Had I just posted a smiley, would it be considered the last
    	word?  (Is a smiley a word at all?)

    In my dictionary the last word is zygote

      While we're having some nice harmless jest, you know what I
      think the weirdest word is?
    
      Think of a word whose ratio of consenants:vowels is 4:1!!!!!!
    
      Can you believe it?  For every consenant, it has four vowels!!
    
      QUEUE
    
      There it is...the strangest word of them all, imo.
    
      You guys, I just want to say that in my heart I desire to know
      God's will for me.  But, in all truth, I know that I do not
      know my heart for it is deceitful above all things.  But, I
      hope that is the heart I allow God to give me (one that is honest
      with God and His word).
    
      There is NOTHING more important to me than my belief that the
      message of the cross is the power and that God condescended to
      take my humanity and to hang on that cross.  And in that experience
      He bore all the anguish sin can possibly dole out.  And I believe
      that in the midst of that experience, at some point, Christ
      demonstrated that should He have to be eternally lost, that He
      would prefer to be just that...if it would draw just one evil
      soul from a life of sin to a life of love.
    
      I often think in terms of absolutes.  The essence of Satan's
      realm is that self is the center of the universe.  The essence 
      of Christ's realm is that virtually everyone but self is the
      center of the universe.  Christ esteems everyone more highly than
      Himself.  Oh sure, He had nothing to offer Satan, but I believe
      it is because Satan was beyond being savable, i.e. a revelation
      of divine love could not draw Satan back because Satan so hardened 
      his own heart by his own rebellious choices.
    
      With that, I have one primary desire in so far as the manifestation
      of Christ in me.  And that is that *were it to be necessary*, that
      I would be willing to give up salvation itself so that any of you
      could have it.  
    
      I know it would never be necessary, but I would still hope to
      have that kind of heart.  A heart whose desire for someone else's
      salvation totally ecclipses the desire for one's own.
    
    						God Bless You All,
    
    						Tony

The flip side of QUEUE is STRENGTH, 7 consonants and only one vowel.

Paul

    Why 3:0 ?

>      Think of a word whose ratio of consenants:vowels is 4:1!!!!!!
>    
>      Can you believe it?  For every consenant, it has four vowels!!
>    
>      QUEUE

Er, the consonants:vowels ratio is 1:4, not 4:1.

NNTTM

/john

      Thanks John,
    
        As echoed by my statement, "For every consenant, it has four
        vowels".
    
        I erred by saying consenant:vowels by having it backwards.
    
    						Tony

    	That's eerie!

    No - they merged with the Lackawana, and are now part of Conrail. 
    
    Oops - wrong conference...
    
    Grins/John