If you do not believe in God, you must not have read the Bible

It is a continuation of the "Old" not an "interpretation" of it.

 

What I was referring to was that Gabriel who does exist is never called an Archangel thus "Archangel Gabriel" is never said to exist.

As for "The foremost angel, both in power and authority, is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael", the word archangel is only used twice in the Bible.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Jude 1:9
But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “ The Lord rebuke you!”

I find it interesting that Jesus is said to have an archangel's voice.

 

And neither are you, and neither is International Headquarters of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But when push comes to shove, I'll believe what seems to be most plausible on the basis of the available evidence. Science is our source for the most rigorous testing of evidence, but when scientific evidence isn't available, I certainly wouldn't brush off dedicated, intelligent bible scholars, historians, philosophers, or saints. The danger in your approach is that it puts you in the position of (1) defending genocide and other atrocities, slavery, the subordination of women, and homophobia; (2) rejecting well-established findings of biology, geology, and archeology; (3) giving people the impression that they must believe things that sometimes seem to be nonsense in order to be true Christians (a danger Augustine warned about); and (4) missing the point.
[/QUOTE]

 

Yes, I know that it's Michael and not Gabriel, and I've said so before. My use of Gabriel was misspeaking. But of course the point I was getting at is that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Michael (whatever title you think is appropriate angellic designation) and Jesus are one in the same, that Jesus was created and is not divine. Is that what you believe?

 

That's just traditionally accepted rhetoric. It ignores the reality. The law, for instance, was not "continued", but fulfilled in Christ, whom Paul calls "the end of the law", in Romans 10, verse 4.

But alas, to many "Christians", the New Testament IS merely a "continuation" of the law. They simply add so many new "commandments" to the existing law.

Look at Romans 4, for instance, where Paul interprets the true significance of Abraham's experience of righteousness, regarding faith, and the law.

Look at the entire book of Galatians, where Paul interprets the place of the law, as regards God's economy. Chapter 4, where he relates Abraham's wife Sarah as representative of grace, while Hagar represents the law.

Throughout the New Testament, the pictures, types and shadows, symbolic representations of things made real to us in Christ, are referred to. Jesus Himself used the types of the temple, for example, as representations of Himself, and of His Body.

There are innumerable comparisons made, from the Old Testament, to New Testament realities. Without the New Testament interpretations of Old Testament symbols, nothing would have clarity to us today. We would just have a bunch of historical events, odd stories, and argue over literalisms.

But that's what people are doing anyway. Arguing, instead of adequately interpreting.

 

arthur, I don't have rep left, but that was a very thoughtful and interesting post =)

 

The bible is a very thoughtful and interesting book. :2thumbsup:

 

i have read the scriptures of many beliefs, including christianity, and the god i believe in is owned by no single one of them, nor obliged to resemble the claims of any.

 

Hey Clem Clown, try reading a post or two sometime:

 

I have no clue why you keep bringing Jehovah's Witnesses into this discussion but if you want to attack them I suggest you write them a letter.

 

And so you miss the point.

 

Again with the Witnesses, have you got some kind of point, because if you do it escapes me?

It seems that you don't bother to read others posts, so I'll repost it for you:

 

It is one book, it is not two contrasting books.

 

What's with all the JW talk?

 

Maybe so, but there are plenty of examples of people in the bible who did not "get it right", including David the king. In his psalms, for instance, he has these moments, praying against his adversaries,,"break the bones",,"avenge me",,etc. He and Jesus seem to have had a different view.

This may seem an inconsistency, but it goes to show that people of God can still be wrong in their attitude.

Jesus comes along, and says, "You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye,,but I say unto you, love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you,,"

Jesus' arrival changed the age, from the age of law, to the age of grace.

You may say that the OT and NT are not "contrasting books", but you have to admit that the dispensation of the law ended with Christ.

Even James, and those with him had a view that favored an appreciation of the law that kept one foot in the old dispensation of the law. When some "came from James", Peter was opposed by Paul, because of Peter's hypocrisy (Read Galatians 2:11 and continuing,,), and his fear of the law-appreciating followers of James. James did not have as clear a vision of the place of the law in God's intention as did Paul. Paul's background in the law informed his clarity as to the greater excellence of Christ. (Phillipians 3 covers this point).

The Old Testament, at least on the surface, emphasizes the law, while the New Testament emphasizes Christ as our life (Colossians 1:27).

 

The law was a tutor leading to the Christ, a shadow of things to come. Now if you want to say the Bible is two contrasting books, that is up to you but the Bible is one book authored by God to show the outworking of his purposes, the first part pointing toward Jesus Christ and beyond in the second.

 

Personally I have nothing against the Witnesses, I believe a lot of the same things that they do but it seems Okiefreak has the Witnesses stuck in his craw.

 

The bible does not go "beyond" Christ. Paul states that God intends to fill the universe with Christ, head up all things in Christ, and John's Revelation states that at the very end, for all eternity, that Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, sits on the throne of God. (",,the throne of God and of the Lamb,,")

There is no "going beyond" Christ, in the heart of God. The New Jerusalem, His final and ultimate expression on the earth, is simply the enlarged Body of Christ, and the ultimate conclusion to all of His work throughout the ages, composed of all of His redeemed, fully expressing Him throughout eternity.

 

Well guess it would depend on what is meant by going beyond the Christ.

The Bible does talk of things yet to happen, beyond what happened in the first century.

Also at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 it says;
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Which seems to indicate that beyond the Christ is God himself.

 

Notice, in the end, in Revelation 22, the throne of God does not merely say "the throne of God", but "the throne of God and of the Lamb". This throne is eternal. The matter of the Son being subject to the Father does not mean that there will be a time when the Son is "old hat". The Son is the Father's good pleasure. For eternity there will be a Lamb on the throne.

The matter of the Son's being subject to the Father is simply a matter of the divine order, within the Triune God. This does not imply that there is a "sequence", and that one would no longer be involved, in the future. All three of the godhead are eternally pre-existent and eternally significant, as they exist one in the other, simultaneously.

You will, perhaps, point me to instances where the Father, Son, and Spirit are seen as visibly separate, for the sake of demonstration. This "separation" is only to show a distinction, and to demonstrate that all three are involved simultaneously. One should not be mislead by the apparent "separateness" of the three.

You call upon the Father, the Son comes with, both being conveyed to us as Spirit. You call upon the Son, He comes, with the Father.

Notice that wherever the Son is, there is also the Father. John 14 brings this out well. They co-inhere. Where one is, there you will find the other.

The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, yet "separate" one from the other. Where you have one, you have the other two, simultaneously.