₦airaland Forum

I am sorry Image123 I don't think you have a clue as to what I started out saying from day one, so while I will continue to respond to the thread in general, I really don't see the need to continue a debate with you. I hope you can respect that.

@ Mazaje

will be back when you are done causing trouble on the sexual and sexuality forum abi?

LOL,

@ Image123

@Bobbyaf
hello.looking all through scripture,one can observe the pattern both in the law as 1Corinthians14 says and also in the new testament.1Corinthians14 and 1Timothy 2 already gives such instruction to women not to teach men but lets also see Titus.It talks about women teaching women only.

I am yet to find the law that Paul makes reference to. Have you ever wondered why Paul didn't write letters to all the churches in Asia Minor? Why just the church in Corinth? Isn't it obvious that there was something wrong with the Corinthian church why Paul had to address not just wives interrupting their husbands prophetic ministries, but the manner in which certain women were deported.

Besides, if we are going to take the words of Paul to the letter as far as I am concerned then no woman at all should as much as utter a single word. Women are to fold their hands and simply listen.

Titus 2v1. But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.v3. The aged WOMEN likewise,that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness,not false accusers,not given to much wine,TEACHERS of good things.v4. That they may TEACH the young women to be sober,to love their husbands,to love their children.v5.v15. THESE things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

I see nothing in this text that says women should teach women only. What I see from this text is that converted women, or wives, should guide those unconverted wives towards holy living. Rather than have men instruct those other wives, it becomes more pragmatic for older and more experienced wives to guide those who were not truly converted.

Phillipians 4:2,3  "I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

I wonder how Euodias and Synteche might have ministered with Paul. Were they silent as they laboured with Paul as women? I wonder,

In Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But still other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague."

1  It is worth noting that Paul refers to Priscilla and her husband as "Priscilla and Aquila" in this passage and as "Aquila and Priscilla" in 1 Corinthians 16:19. It would appear that the order is not important to Paul. As in Galatians 3:28, he apparently believed that there is no distinction between male and female among those who have been baptized into Christ.

In Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus, and a female apostle, Junia, as "outstanding among the apostles"

From these passages it seems that women are indeed allowed to minister. What women are not allowed to do is to have spiritual authority over men. That becomes the crux of the matter.  It has nothing to do with a woman standing behind a podium and delivering the word of God to any congregation that happens to include men, especially today.

Back then women in general were uneducated, and were seen as property of their husbands and fathers.  The peak of frustration often led the women back then to express themselves in church in a highly emotional manner which led to disorder especially when they confronted their husbands prophetic ministries.

We aught to bear in mind that not all husbands were converted either. Paul had to admonish them to lift up holy hands. It could be that the very wives of such often spoke out in opposition against those who abused the gift of prophecy. 1 Corinthians 13, and 14 address that issue.

Because  men and women are one in Christ, that long-held traditional view, where women had very little worth, has been changed according to Paul in his letter to the Galatians.  Converted women were now being educated about spiritual matters, and became more open, and felt they had a say in how things aught to be, albeit sometimes to the shame of the congregation, when they went overboard.

I believe that women can play an invaluable role in ministry, but I also believe that they should not dominate in spiritual matters. This is where most people get confused. They mis-interpret the roles of men and women based on the order of creation.  Before sin Eve stood by her husband's side which reflected equality. She was not made from his feet to be trampled by him, or from his head to be dominated by him.

After sin however, and especially as she was deceived, and blamed for it, her role became subjected to her husband's. That is the genesis of the way women were seen throughout the dispensations. The Hebrew and Jewish tradition maintained it until the time of the Messiah.

When Jesus died Paul said it didn't matter anymore, because we are all one in Christ.  I believe that women have a major role to play in assisting men in the ministry, but it must be done in the order that Paul reminded us of.  They should not strive to take over, or to dominate.

Well Image 123 please find a text that says that women aught to teach women only, and I will agree with your line of argument, ok!

@ Image123

thanks for your reply.Like I said earlier,this is a very inconvenient subject for me to discuss. Firstly,I have to say I have nothing against women and I appreciate the females God has used in my life. Have also listened to women teach,as I have men. Of course on the two sides/genders,we have in our little analyses very good teachers and not too good teachers.but in the service of God's kingdom,I think its more than been a good teacher or having a gift.

In the service of God's kingdom according to Paul in Galatians 3:28 it doesn't matter if you're male or female. Both 1 Cor. 14, and Galatians 3:28 were written by the same apostle. How do you reconcile the variation? If Paul is saying that the sexual and gender barriers are broken down in Galatians then why is he restricting women in Corinthians? That is why you cannot isolate one or two passages that dealt with particular situations and make a general rule of it.

I think it is more important to do things according to the pattern that has being shown to us,according to instruction not intuition.

I agree with you in principle that we aught to follow instructions, but what I cannot agree with you on is your understanding and analysis of the instructions, that were given for a particular situation.

I see 1timothy2v12 and 1corinthians14v34,35 as very clear commands and I believe the original recipients of the epistles understood it as such,commands no excuses.

We are all familiar with the passages Image. We have all read them, but I have placed other references that Paul has written to the Corinthian church that give women the freedom to both teach and prophesy and pray publicly. See 1 Corinthian 11.

when a passage or verse doesn't seem clear enough,then other verses around the verse or in other parts of the scripture are used to explain or clarify the verse,not contradict the verse or downplay the verse.

Which proves my case. If one passage seems contradictory when read in the light of the other then one or more things could be wrong. Its either we are reading the instructions at face value and not taking the time out to see why Paul in the first place had to give them, or we fail to realize that there is unison in truth. Truth cannot contradict truth. One church cannot be given contradictory sets of instructions concerning women. In two separate epistles we have Paul giving instructions for one set of women to be silent, and another to set freedom to both pray and teach publicly. How do you reconcile that?

There are some verses in the bible that you don't need to be even born again or spirit filled to understand.the messages of such verses are clear for all to see.All may not believe the verse or have power/grace to obey such verses but they do understand the verse.

When someone starts that topic we can discuss that one. Its not a question of not obeying the instructions, but [b]fully [/b]understanding what is being said by Paul.

That wouldn't make sense if the tribulation will precede the second coming of Jesus anyway. God's people will not escape the tribulation, but in accordance with Matthew 24 it will be cut short for the elect's sake.

Revelation 7:9,13,14
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 013: And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
014: And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Why is it that persons mistakenly refer to the mark as 666? 666 is not the mark, and will never be. It is the number of the beast.

If you really desire to know what the mark is you'd have to discover what exactly is the beast according to Revelation 13. If you have the time please take a look at this video link:

http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html

@ Image123

@Bobbyaf and tpia
happy and prosperous new year to you brethren.I appreciate your contributions generally on nairaland but I beg to disagree on this one.it is not a convenient topic for me and many others to comment on.

Happy New year to you too.

Please explain or re explain 1Timothy2v12 and 1Corinthians14v34,35. You seem to be taking it away from the Word and directing attention to other scriptures that seem to support your cause. Please deal with the 2texts above directly.

This is my position. I don't usually try to explain any single text coming from the apostle Paul. I prefer to allow God's word over all to explain a single text that either appears difficult by itself, or has been seen in the wrong context. Context is very important especially where Paul is concerned.

Now allow me to get to the meat of your question. Let us visit 1 Cor. 11:13 where Paul addresses a controversy as to whether women should have their heads covered while praying, or prophesying. Jewish women were accustomed to wearing veils on their heads, while gentile women did not. Obviously the two cultures were in conflict. Notice that that particular conflict didn't address what Paul addressed in another section of a letter in which he directed that wives be silent. How is it that women in one section could both pray and prophesy preferably with hair on their head, and not in another section? Have you noticed that Paul does not stop the women from praying and prophesying aloud during church services as mentioned in 1 Cor. 11?

So what is the major difference between 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Cor 11 may I ask? The difference in instructions given to both settings had to do with two different problems. I also would like someone to tell me how many congregations existed in Corinth? How many little bits of letters had Paul sent to the Corinthian churches?

For Christians to fully appreciate the books of Corinthian we have to read all the letters together in order to get the full backdrop, or context. We dare not isolate a few sentences and make a sweeping generalization about a topic we know nothing about, unless we prayerfully take the time to do proper research. In short the Corinthian church was a problem church.

In Corinthians 12 Paul highlighted that they were some members who were led astray by idols, especially those wives or women who were still not converted and who prophesied garblings and blasphemous utterings. In the same chapter Paul admonishes all members to seek spiritual gifts. Were women in general excluded from receiving such gifts because they were a few wives, or women who were still practicing idolatry, and the occult ? Absolutely not!

1 Cor: 12:7 says, But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. Does the phrase "each one" excludes women or wives?

Notice also that the greek word "gune" in 1 Cor. 14 has been translated as wife, rather than woman in other passages. In 1 Corinthan 14 it is strongly believed that Paul was addressing those wives who were either untaught, or unconverted, and who became controversial and argumentative, and who allowed worldly principles to deal with their converted husbands.

Also note that the Greek phrase "hai gune" should be translated "those wives" and not "the women" , which would suggest that Paul was pointing out specific wives, or women, rather than generalizing all women.

@Bobbyaf
some of the BEST sermons you've listened to came from the lips of women.are you serious?

Dead serious!

Bobbyaf,the text says they are not to teach. How come you're saying that the text says they're not to dominate. Say your commentary/pastor says they're not to dominate.Don't say that the text says so.

See my explanation above.

Bobbyaf, Galatian3v28 does not say women will become prophets in the last days, and by the way being a prophet doesn't automatically make you a teacher of the Word.
Please,try to provide an example of a female prophet in the Bible that constantly taught God's will to God's people.

Sorry about the wrong biblical reference. I meant Acts 2:17. So what would be the purpose of God giving the gift of prophesy to women, if not for them to teach others, including their husbands? Didn't Paul say in 1 Corinthians 14 that such a gift is for the edification of the church, or body of Christ? The word "prophesy" can mean one of two things. To predict the future, or teach. If God's word says that God Himself will raise up women prophetesses in the last days, then why are we limiting the gift of prophesy? In other words if a woman receives such a gift she can only keep it to herself, or she can only share such with other women.

Come on good people we can do better than that.

@ Bindex

Let me answer on Mazaje's behalf (I hope he doesn't mind) You have turned the story into an allegorical account knowing that it clearly doesn't add up.

I didn't say the account was an allegory. Like you I know that the account was an event.

Matthew and Mark reported it as an event not an allegory, on what basis does a person take biblical story as an allegory?

I believe you're confusing my responses to mean what they don't. The event is obviously literal, but I was providing for the readers an allegory from the account.

As you said the tree had foliage which indicated that it was ready for fruit. Thats not what I am interested in.

Too bad for you, but I am, and that is why I sought to allegorize the account.

Did the tree wither immediately as written by Matthew or the next morning as written by Mark? The new testament is alleged to have been the writings of the deciples of Jesus who were with him and witnessed all the alleged events, why then are their account of events so contradictory?

I figure that both writers emphasized things differently. First of all Matthew does not say that the fig tree's cursing occurred on the day following the cleansing of the temple. He simply said it was in the morning as he returned to the city with the rest of the disciples.(see Matthew 21:18) Matthew didn't specify which day he was referring to.

Mark on the other hand approached it topically, and specifically. He makes mention of the tree when Jesus departed for the temple, and during the following day after they were returning from the temple.

Besides, how different writers choose to describe the same event has no bearing on whether they were inspired. Inspiration doesn't rob a person of their freedom to express it the way they understand it, or desire their readers to see it.

Each writer had their unique way to express themselves. They weren't dictated to in which case they would be writing their accounts word for word.

Going back to the emphasis I was trying to highlight. Somewhere along the journey Jesus noticed a fully leafed-out tree. Normally fig trees would bear the fruits first after which the foliage would flood as it were the entire tree. In this unique case it afforded Jesus the opportunity to teach a lesson that truly reflected the Jewish nation. The jews, and especially the religious leaders boasted and feigned spiritual piety, but they bore no fruitage of conversion. In fact many of the Jews were set on crucifying their own Messsiah before the very same week would be over.

These events were only recorded in the bible, if their accounts are so conflicting then it goes to show that the alleged eye witness did not write any of the books as the bible claims.

I am consoled with the thought that your opinions are not factual, but you're free to express them anyway.

@ Tpia

thanks for this insightful post oh.

don't know if the readers of only one verse in the bible can understand it sha.

Welcome! I have no doubt that were Paul alive today he'd be saying to our women continue to do the good work. I couldn't tell when last I heard of a woman preacher failing to deliver the word. I have seen souls won for Christ through some of the greatest women preachers.

I salute all women preachers, and teachers. God bless you all.

@ Image 123

I'm suprised at your reply.Do you seriously mean that 1Corinthians and 1Timothy are written only to the corinthians and to Timothy and are therefore not applicable/relevant to Today's christian?

In support of Tpia I say no. Women indeed can teach men whether at home, or in the church.  What they shouldn't do according to Paul is to dominate.

So what book in the bible is written to us /can be followed by us. I've always thought christians should be transformed/changed by the renewing of their minds through scriptures so that they could prove the good and PERFECT will of God. I thought the view of scriptures ought to direct and guide us and not just OUR fancies,likes and traditions.

Yes the scriptures aught to do that, but when interpreted privately, as in your case, it poses a problem.  Galatians 3:28 says that women will become prophets in the last days. Who is a prophet may I ask? One who teaches God's will to God's people. So, if God gives revelations to women why shouldn't the whole congregation know of such?

The english translations of the 2text seem clear,why take us through greek lessons.se you wan do ojoro?
There's so much to be involved in in the work/kingdom of God.Not teaching men doesn't turn anyone into a robot or to being useless. In a church of 5000 members where they have about say 20 teachers,are the remaining people robots?

I don't even know where to begin with this one, lol

First and foremost the passage of scripture often quoted doesn't in any form, or fashion say that a woman cannot preach, or teach in the sense that you're portraying.

Honesty requires that you go back to the original context of what the apostle Paul was really trying to say specifically. You have no right to extrapolate one passage of scripture and make it out to be a general rule for all situations, and dispensations.

The safest thing to do is to weigh the weight of evidence in all the bible. If you fail to do so, you'll be setting up the bible to make it seem contradictory.

Listen to what scripture says concerning women.

Acts 2:17, 18
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Certainly there is no distinction here as far as prophesying, or teaching is concerned. You may argue that women cannot teach men, but that spells stupidity, because why would God raise up a prophetess with a message for women only. When God gives visions to women He does it for the upliftment, and edification of the body of Christ.

Galatians 3:28 says
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is Paul speaking in another context. Away with this notion that women are not at liberty to teach men. Some of the best sermons I have listened to came from the lips of women.

@ mazaje

did you read the passage according to mark?

Yes I did.

how can jesus expect it to be fruitful when it was not yet time for figs? why was jesus expecting the fig tree to do that which it can not do? it was'nt the season for figs how did jesus the creator of the fig tree not know that it was'nt time for the fig tree to produce figs? jesus highlighted the hipocracy of the leaders how? by expecting them to do what they can't do like he expected the fig tree to produce out of season?

Because the tree had plenty of foliage. As I have explained one of the indications of fruitage is when its foliage is plenty. The fact is fruit trees have been known to bear out of season. So why did Jesus approach the tree, do you think, if He never expected it to have borne fruits? Do you think He might have been confused by His hunger, lol?

On the other hand Jesus could have approached the tree with the idea of providing an object lesson for His disciples. Since it was expected that plenty of foliage on a fig tree was a strong indication of much fruitage, and no such fruits were found regardless of it being in season or not, then cursing the tree as an act had far more implications than just a mere physical cursing of a tree. I hope you appreciate where I am coming from.

Even the very question as to whether the Creator of the fig tree knew if it bore or not would suggest that He had a far greater lesson to teach about the tree's deception. As I have hinted persons who outwardly put on a coat of self-righteousness often do not reflect what God really expects. From a distance they seem to be true, but upon closer examination they possess not the fruit of the Spirit. I believe that it was Jesus who said, "by their fruits ye shall know them, "

For those of us who need to understand what exactly the bible means by the "mark of the beast" kindly view the following video.

http://www.john1429.org/video/mark/TheMARK.html

Let me know what is in your heart.

@ Ben20001

not complete

How much more information would you need to convince you?

@ Kuns

Not everything in the book is prophetic. I assume you have read the entire book so you should know that. Revelation 12 was giving an historical account of a war that occurred thousands of years before John was shown the vision highlighting it.

One cannot simply use the book's opening remarks to assume that everything said in the book is prophetic.

As regards the fig tree.

Fig trees normally bear fruit when their foliage is plenty.  This one in particular had a lot of leaves but no fruits. Jesus expected it to be fruitful, but found it fruitless at a time when it was most needed. He cursed it and further used it to highlight the hypocracy of the religious leaders of the day, who show signs on the outside to indicate fruitage, but under closer examination they are indeed bare.

As for Jesus not knowing that the tree in question was not bearing is really irrelevant.  Was it expected of Him to know?

@ Bindex

I believe that you are in a bind, lol

I doubt if anyone even if they can will gravitate towards your line of questions. 

--------------------------------------

@ Lady

Very well said indeed. Its obvious that there are persons who have made up their minds to be deliberately blind to reason and truth.

In time they will receive their own experience, if ever it should come.

@ Kuns

@Bobbyaf

How else are we suppose to learn if we don't ask questions?

And when I ask a question I want an intelligent answer, not arguments based on belief.

Ok, let us have your first question. I'd appreciate if your questions were to the point rather than a paragraph's length.

Yes fellow believers a time will come when all those who are alive as Christians will see the United States being used as that agent to strengthen the Roman Catholic church far beyond its former glory.

According to the prophecy this religious-political power's wound was healed in 1929. (see Revelation 13) It further stated that this beast would have full control over the entire world, and would use the US to help launch its mark.

Ever wondered who really controls the money? Ever wondered why the Federal Reserve is not owned by the US government? Ever wondered why The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was set up to compile records of every red-blooded US citizen, and to swindle their hard-earned dollar. And the government is powerless to protect its citizenry from such a monster.

Ever wondered why the US government is the largest debtor? The US government is gradually losing control of its own currency and will soon be forced to swap its sovereignty for the ability to stay afloat in the economic turbulent seas.

Where did all the money go in the recent economic slide? as the economy slides so will the morals of the nation, and all the other nations who depend on the US economy. Soon the world will face an unprecedented crisis that has never been seen in the history of the world.

The only logical step is for a one world government to be enacted to solve the world's crisis. If man can't solve the world's dilemma, then regulated religion will. It is this church and state union that existed in Europe before that will once again confront the whole world. It won't be Europe alone, but the entire world.

The scripture says, "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

The site includes more detailed readings if you desire. Seriously now nominal Christians are allowing former European Catholic dogma to once again penetrate the free world. What looms on the horizon spells extreme danger for all bible-believing Christians.

@ Kuns

There are 613 commandments and not 10 like you believers want us to believe.

Too bad for you, I am only concerned about God's moral laws.

If you say you are following the Jews then you need to keep all the commandments and not just 10.

Show me where it says that those laws were eternal, or was meant to be. The only law that is eternal is the decalogue or the 10 commandments.

Matthew 5: 17, 18 Yashua (aka Jesus of 2000 years ago) said and I quote " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Yashua was refering to the law of Moses (Torah) or don't you think so?

Yet all those laws, including the law of ceremonies were fulfilled at the cross. The only law that is still binding on Christians is God's 10 commandments written by God's own hands.

Any logical brain or thought would realize by now that this dispensation doesn't operate like that of Moses'. Those laws do not apply to us. They were given because of the unique conditions that prevailed then.

@ Dgreatrock

Where are you man?

I see Kuns that you have an obsession for the bible, even if it means making a mockery of it.

I wonder why? I wonder what is the driving force behind your latent admiration for the bible, and the Almighty God that the bible speaks of.

Don't make God laugh last, as the bible says that He will, lol

In reality it was a physical sign, although it has a spiritual meaning as well, that Jesus reminded his people of that would cement their belief in both Daniel's prophecy, and Jesus' reminder, of the destruction that would befall Jerusalem in AD70.

That sign manifested itself in AD 66 some four years before the actual destruction. It was considered an abomination by God's people for a foreign pagan nation to march around the holy walls of Jerusalem. The Romans first marched around Jerusalem in AD66 but mysteriously withdrew their forces.

Desolation simply means destruction that would come upon Jerusalem, and all those who remained in the city even after Jesus warned them to look out for the AD 66 sign, and for them to make their departure. Jesus wept and bemoaned because He knew that majority of those who failed to heed His warning would perish in the most terrible manner.

In the last days a repetition of the abomination of desolation will once again recur. The Anti-Christ will in both a spiritual sense as well as physical encroach against God and His people. This false church will become the zenith of abomination, but will also seek to wipe out God's people as it did hundreds of millions in ages past.

I noticed I haven't seen comments on this video as yet. Is the warning too challenging for some Christians to discuss or what? Is the message making some of you uncomfortable?

What say ye?

The only law that stands forever is the 10 commandments. All other laws had their fulfillment in Christ. As a matter of fact the over 600 laws that were introduced over a period of time were so done because of the hardness of the people's hearts, and the need for Israel to distinguish themselves fro their heathen counterparts.

it was never God's intention to burden His people with restrictive laws, some of which passed down into the time of the Messiah that He often had to clarify contextually.

Now that the substance, being Christ has come and achieved His mission, certain laws are no longer necessary.

@ Kuns

I am not sure what other facts, other than what has been shown to you, that you're able to handle just now. Probably if you were to ask about what you're not familiar with, then the answers will come, if not by me, but by others.

So feel free to frame intelligent questions, but be also prepared for intelligent answers.

I urge all Christians to view this video. Please give your comments. below is the link,


http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html

@ Kuns

God is indeed just. If he were not you'd be dead already, lol

Anyway, God is indeed just and good as we know as Christians. It is sin that is causing all this destruction, and I will agre it does look as if God is responsible, until one understands the context of sin.

You've mentioned examples of God killing people, but have you considered why He had to do it? Every person including peoples of nations have been given time to know of God's grace and goodness, and that included those nations who knew of Israel's God.

If you take the time to read those instances when he had to, then you will develop a better understanding as to exactly why He had to.

God can either take a passive role, or an active role over human's activities. Either way humans will destroy themselves.

In the light of God's absolute truth, and justice you're not in a position to fully understand the ways and acts of God until you first understand what sin is, and why God has allowed it to have manifested in the first place.

The many confusions of Christendom is largely due to a failure to understand sin, and God's plan of salvation. Majority of Christians have no true knowledge as to the real reason Christ came. I will go into that another time.

We cannot blame God for our own failures, and acts of wickedness, that if not checked, will lead to destruction. When God allows the destruction of peoples, and nations, He does so as a last resort. Often those peoples' degenerate lifestyle forces the hand of God to end their life of misery. Out of love He does them a great favour, as was the case of Sodom, and likewise the Amelakites who for over 500 years failed to see God as the only true Creator of heaven and earth, although they had the exposure to such knowledge.

The bottom line is God will come out justified as was predicted in the bible.

"Michael the Archangel" is used to highlight the role of Christ. However He is not an angel. Sounds strange doesn't it?

There has been a gross misunderstanding of the phrase "archangel". "Arch" in Greek means chief, or ruler and

"angel" in Greek means either angel, or messenger depending on the use of context.

So when we put the words together in the context of application we get either chief messenger, or chief angel. We have to go with the former application for obvious reasons.

Christ for a fact is not an angel otherwise He'd be a creature, and not the Creator. So why does the bible use the phrase archangel?

It is very simple. Christ being One with His Father is simply taking on the role as chief mouthpiece, or spokesperson of the God-Head. He began that role even before He became the Christ.

It was He who spoke to Moses on the mount in the midst of the burning bush. Even then He was referred to as an "angel of the Lord"

"Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground."

It was He who appeared with 2 angels and visited with Abraham to tell him of the ultimate destruction of Sodom. Here He spoke on behalf of heaven.

Daniel used the phrase "one of the chief princes" to highlight the intervention of Christ when Satan saught to frustrate Daniel's efforts.

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."


Notice that at no time were angels called "one of the chief princes" in scriptures.

Also in Revelation 12 we see the term "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

The term "Michael the archangel" only appears once in scripture and that is found here, "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 1:9

Notice how words are used in this passage of scripture,

"13. And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

14. And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

15. And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so. Joshua 5:13-15

No doubt that captain has to be none other than Jesus Himself. It was He who fought Lucifer in heaven as Michael. Notice that John in Revelation 12 made it clear whose angels they were. He said "Michael and His angels"

I could go on but the facts have spoken for themselves.

Satan being a liar from the beginning doesn't mean he wasn't pure from the beginning either. God certainly didn't create Satan, so where did he come from? Isn't Satan an angel? And if he was an angel what was his name? Why would two major prophets indicate that Lucifer fell from heaven?

What did they mean by falling from heaven? Revelation 12 speaks of Satan falling from heaven. Notice two prophets used his original name, Lucifer, while John used Satan, the devil to describe a being that was kicked out of heaven, and who took with him a third of God's angels.

The question is, if Lucifer fell where is he? Can you account for him?