- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
22 Dec 21
@galveston75 said<<One of those verses states that the resurrected Lord Jesus “will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) Jesus has “an archangel’s voice” because he is the archangel, Michael.>>
@galveston75
Michael is “the archangel.” (Jude 9) The title “archangel,” meaning “chief of the angels,” appears in only two Bible verses. In both cases, the word is singular, suggesting that only one angel bears that title. One of those verses states that the resurrected Lord Jesus “will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” (1 Thess ...[text shortened]... eat tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning.”—Matthew 24:21, 42. WTS......
Why do you read this as the voice belonging to Jesus? I never read it that way.
22 Dec 21
@pb1022 saidNo it obviously wasn't. It was different because he was not recognized at first. But again flesh and blood can not go to heaven. He went back to heaven as a spirit as that is the only way to exist in heaven....
Again:
You realize Jesus Christ’s Resurrected body was not the same as His crucified and entombed body, right?
22 Dec 21
@pb1022 saidReally? Well ok then. But does it not say this is the Lord speaking?
<<One of those verses states that the resurrected Lord Jesus “will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) Jesus has “an archangel’s voice” because he is the archangel, Michael.>>
Why do you read this as the voice belonging to Jesus? I never read it that way.
22 Dec 21
3 edits
@galveston75 saidI think it is clear from other passages that Jesus is coming WITH an Archangel/s, who is the one doing the calling.
"One of those verses states that the resurrected Lord Jesus “will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
To which of the angels did He say, this is my son [Answer - NONE]
Also it is a good idea not to add to what the bible says. The bible does not tell you everything, and the bible never said there is only one archangel. You made that assumption. Quite often I have seen people do that and because I have read quite a lot of the Apocrypha and pseudographia , it is obvious to me they have gone astray. In the Book of Enoch, there is mention of several Archangels and their names. Your assumption that there is only one is wrong.
No angel or archangel can be the Son of God. In Enoch also interestingly, the Son of God is referred to as the Ancient of Days.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
22 Dec 21
@galveston75 saidIt wasn’t the same for another reason: He was whipped to a bloody pulp before He was crucified.
No it obviously wasn't. It was different because he was not recognized at first. But again flesh and blood can not go to heaven. He went back to heaven as a spirit as that is the only way to exist in heaven....
But my whole point in bringing this up is that I don’t believe His Resurrected body was/is flesh and blood.
Look at what the Apostle Paul says about bodies that believers receive:
“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”
(1 Corinthians 15:42-44)
And here it seems Jesus ascends to Heaven in His Resurrected body, not as a spirit being.
“And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
(Acts 1:9-11)
22 Dec 21
@pb1022 saidSo think on this for a minute. When Jesus came in among them clearly he didn't look the same which we agree on. But then what did he have Thomas do? He told him to stick his and in his side. If Jesus was in another flesh and blood body as he had from birth, how could he be living without bleeding to death with an open wound like that? He would simply bleed to death on the spot.
It wasn’t the same for another reason: He was whipped to a bloody pulp before He was crucified.
But my whole point in bringing this up is that I don’t believe His Resurrected body was/is flesh and blood.
Look at what the Apostle Paul says about bodies that believers receive:
“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorrupti ...[text shortened]... you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
(Acts 1:9-11)
So what does this mean. Angels in the past were seen on earth as humans. But they were angels that materialized to appear as humans. Their body's felt like humans to the touch, they could even eat like humans. But when the angels left earth they discarded the body.
I'm sure you know this but maybe not.
Anyway this is what was used by Jesus after he was resurrected. That body disappeared as he was ascending up to heaven. After all no one saw the body fall to earth, right?
1 Peter 3:18:
18 "For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."
Acts 13:34:
34 And the fact that He resurrected him from the dead never again to return to corruption, He has stated in this way: ‘I will give you the expressions of loyal love promised to David, which are faithful.’
1 Corinthians 15:45:
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
2 Corinthians 5:16:
16 So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way."
Jesus body was given as a sacrifice for all of us. That was accomplished when he died and the body served that purpose. If he had been resurrected in anther flesh and blood body then that would negate that first body's meaning. Now he would have to start that whole process again. Plus he was to never see death again. If that had been a fleshly body like he had, he would have seen death again which goes against that scripture at Acts 13:34.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@galveston75 saidEither you didn’t understand me or I didn’t express myself clearly. I don’t believe Jesus Christ’s Resurrected body was/is flesh and blood, nor do I think believers will receive flesh-and-blood bodies after they die.
So think on this for a minute. When Jesus came in among them clearly he didn't look the same which we agree on. But then what did he have Thomas do? He told him to stick his and in his side. If Jesus was in another flesh and blood body as he had from birth, how could he be living without bleeding to death with an open wound like that? He would simply bleed to death on the ...[text shortened]... ly body like he had, he would have seen death again which goes against that scripture at Acts 13:34.
Flesh is obviously subject to decay and blood is only needed for a flesh body.
<<That body disappeared as he was ascending up to heaven.>>
What verse supports this statement?
<<After all no one saw the body fall to earth, right?>>
That’s because Jesus Christ is still in His Resurrected body.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
22 Dec 21
<<Either you didn’t understand me or I didn’t express myself clearly. I don’t believe Jesus Christ’s Resurrected body was/is flesh and blood, nor do I think believers will receive flesh-and-blood bodies after they die.>>
I expressed myself clearly; I guess you just missed it.
Check the second paragraph of my post at 19:50
22 Dec 21
@pb1022 saidYes you are right. I misread that part. Sorry.
Either you didn’t understand me or I didn’t express myself clearly. I don’t believe Jesus Christ’s Resurrected body was/is flesh and blood, nor do I think believers will receive flesh-and-blood bodies after they die.
Flesh is obviously subject to decay and blood is only needed for a flesh body.
<<That body disappeared as he was ascending up to heaven.>>
What verse sup ...[text shortened]... aw the body fall to earth, right?>>
That’s because Jesus Christ is still in His Resurrected body.
To support what? That the body did not go to heaven? I'm still not understanding what you are exactly saying.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
22 Dec 21
@galveston75 said<<To support what? That the body did not go to heaven?>>
Yes you are right. I misread that part. Sorry.
To support what? That the body did not go to heaven? I'm still not understanding what you are exactly saying.
Yes.
22 Dec 21
@rajk999 saidWell that's a different subject for another day. And the book of Enoch is what? Is it part of the Bible? Must not be.
I think it is clear from other passages that Jesus is coming WITH an Archangel/s, who is the one doing the calling.
To which of the angels did He say, this is my son [Answer - NONE]
Also it is a good idea not to add to what the bible says. The bible does not tell you everything, and the bible never said there is only one archangel. You made that assumption. Quite oft ...[text shortened]... the Son of God. In Enoch also interestingly, the Son of God is referred to as the Ancient of Days.
22 Dec 21
@galveston75 saidThe Watchtower opinions? Are those part of the bible? Must not be. There are many writings which were part of the library of the Jewish in which I will place far more trust than what the Watchtower writes. Eg had your elders read the book of Enoch they wont have made wrong assumption that there was only one archangel.
Well that's a different subject for another day. And the book of Enoch is what? Is it part of the Bible? Must not be.
22 Dec 21
@sonship saidEverybody can choose what they want to believe, and the only people around here who are getting abusive, telling people they are denying Christ and other such statements are the believers in the Trinity/Triune God.
@Rajk999
The whole premise of this thread seems to be in vain to me.
I don't care if it appears foolish to some people if I believe in the triune God.
" . . . God was well pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe." (1 Cor. 1:21b)
The thread has demonstrated that Jesus was subject to the Father prior to the creation, subject to the Father during his ministry and subject to the Father after the millennial reign. That can only be called equality by someone who does not understand basic English.