SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Heres a good topic, What about Angels? they are among us right?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
taco
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211


 Re:

Interesting. I am by no means saying that it is impossible but I still can't see it as an absolute that Satan is or was greatest. I believe that Michael would be a stronger contender being, as you said, expicitly refered to as arch angel. I was not under the impression that all angels are cherubim. Chief cherubim may not equate to chief angel. And I am not 100% that ezekiel 28 refers to Satan although obviously there is merit ot that opinion.

 2005/7/31 11:37Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

All of your points are valid. archangel may refer to Michael's position as field-marshall in the angelic hosts. I didn't mean to imply that all angels were cherubim; only that they seem to have greatest proximity to God. The descriptions in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, though contested by some, would seem to set Satan/Lucifer at the pinnacle of creation.

refs to Michael: Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7

These two phrases are interesting

“the devil and his angels:”(Matt. 25:41, KJVS)
“Michael and his angels”(Rev. 12:7, KJVS)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/31 11:45Profile
TiltedHalo
Member



Joined: 2005/7/18
Posts: 57
Brooklyn, USA

 Re: Phil

You are correct. Michael himself could not contend with the Angel of Light. None could. Yet with the power of the Great I AM, even the lowliest of angels could defeat Lucifer.

Lucifer is, period, the strongest Angel of the Lord.


_________________
Arnaldo Santiago, Jnr.

 2005/7/31 14:01Profile
taco
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211


 Re:

Quote:

TiltedHalo wrote:
You are correct. Michael himself could not contend with the Angel of Light. None could. Yet with the power of the Great I AM, even the lowliest of angels could defeat Lucifer.

Lucifer is, period, the strongest Angel of the Lord.



Where does scripture say that Michael [b]could[/b] not contend with "the angel of light"?

 2005/7/31 14:30Profile









 Re: Angels - re TiltedHalo

Quote:
Lucifer is, period, the strongest Angel of the Lord.

Hang on a tick! Isn't 'the Angel of the Lord' (capital A) another name for appearances of the Son of God in the Old Testament?

 2005/7/31 14:36
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

taco writes:

Quote:
Where does scripture say that Michael could not contend with "the angel of light"?



Ron B had written:
Quote:
Of heaven's angels Michaei is referred to as the archangel; Gabriel is not an arch-angel. Jude seems to indicate that even Michael could not take on Satan without God special support.
“Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”(Jude 1:8-9, KJVS)


Again, your objection is correct. It does not say 'could' not it say's 'dared not'. However, why 'dared not'? Presumably because Michael would not dispute the original hierarchy of the angelic hosts. This whole passage seems to be focused on 'angels which kept not their first estate'. Michael, apparently, even in contest over Moses' body would not abandon his f'irst estate' but called upon God Himself to intervene. You are right, it does not say 'could not' but in drawing attention to the passage I think you have proved my point that Satan was, at one time, the greatest of the angelic hosts.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/31 15:43Profile
taco
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211


 Re:

Quote:
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”(Jude 1:8-9, KJVS)



This speaks more of Michael's attitude rather than his limitation. In an other passage we do in fact read of him making war on Satan (rev 12). I infer from this that Satan is indeed a great dignitary but certainly not that he was of necessaity the greatest, any more than the other dignities spoken of in this passage would have to have at one time been "the greatest".

Put it like this, had satan been 2nd in command I think that this passage would still apply. I don't believe that Michael's restraint demonstrates that satan must have been greater than he. It could simply be a case of a sort of romans 14:4 among angels (don't judge another's servant) Michael called upon God to rebuke his own servant.

I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than it is :-) But I don't believe that the evidence warrants such a definitive statement about Satan especialy when Michael is the one named as Arch-Angel.

 2005/7/31 15:57Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than it is But I don't believe that the evidence warrants such a definitive statement about Satan especialy when Michael is the one named as Arch-Angel.


I agree. I still don't understand Michael's deference to his authority, in the context of Jude, if he (Michael) was the greatest of the angels. It is interesting that Michael is called 'archangel' in Jude; perhaps he was given that role after Satan's defection.

I agree, however, that none of this can be proved mathematically. Consider the evidence; make your own choice.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/31 16:06Profile
taco
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 211


 Re:



OK, this is my last post on this issue, or I shall be venturing into wrangling over words. Also I hope that we all can continue looking at the rest of this interesting subject.

Quote:
I still don't understand Michael's deference to his authority, in the context of Jude



Jude does not actualy explicitly say that Michael defered to Satan's authority it simply says that he did not bring a railing accusation against him. A President skilled in diplomacy will not start calling an ammbasador from a communist country "a little red so and so". The president is not defering to his authority but neither is he bbringing a railing accusation against him. this is by no means a one for one analogy of the Michael / Satan dispute. but just to show that not bringing a railing accusation is not the equivelent of defering to authority.


Even if it did say that Michael defered to Satan's authority this would still not prove that he was greater than micael. All it would show is that in the present arena ie earth (they were disputing moses body) Satan had more autority. this could well be the case as per the dialogue between the Lrod and Satan in his temptation.

Quote:
I agree, however, that none of this can be proved mathematically. Consider the evidence; make your own choice.



Agreed 8-)

 2005/7/31 16:31Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Jude does not actualy explicitly say that Michael defered to Satan's authority it simply says that he did not bring a railing accusation against him.


I still don't understand why it would say Michael did not 'dare' to bring a railing accusation against him. This is 'tomao' which is used in Matt. 22:46; Mark 12:34; 15:43; Luke 20:40; John 21:12; Acts 5:13; 7:32; Rom. 5:7; 15:18; 1Cor. 6:1; 2Cor. 10:2,12; 11:21; Phil. 1:14; Jude 1:9

The implication actually is not that Michael deferred but that he did not have the requisite boldness. My question (to myself) is what did Michael 'fear'. Did he fear breaking the hierarchical chain or did he fear Satan himself. The NKJV has “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!””
(Jude 1:8-9, NKJV) This seems to suggest that Michael did not dare to 'reject authority'. This is not wrangling; I would just like to understand what this passage means.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/31 16:58Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy