I am not debating you, but for sure I am discussing and questioning for us both to come with a clearer understanding of the topic.
By the definition of the word "angel" in both the Hebrew and the Greek.
For sure the root words in Hebrew and Greek indicate that "angel is a "messenger".
Further, the application of Christ possible being an archangel does not diminish Christ but escalates the office of archangel.
I am not sure what you are you are stating here. The phrase "the application of Christ " is one which I am unfamiliar, but it seems as if you are saying that according to your theology your belief that jesus pre-existed as Michael is an elevation of the POSITION of one being an archangel. Is that a correct statement of what you stated there?
Nevertheless, the thrust of your statement t seems to be that "Archangel Michael died for out sins".
I do note that the same objections to Christ coming as a messenger mimic those of the gnostics who pooh poohed the teaching that Christ came as a man or a physical being of any sort but was in their minds the manifestation of Spirit. Prompting such responses as John 1:14 and 1 John 1.
The Gnostics were not Christians, so I am wondering what is the relevance of bringing in a non-Christian, pagan by definition heresy into the discussion?
God is the supreme being and by very nature escalates all he engages in.
He is not it, and it is not He. You seem to be bringing in another non Christian philosophy into the discussion, in order to make your point. How can any discussion of a pagan religion shed light into who Jesus Christ is?
For example the divine attributes of the angel in Daniels prophetic book suggest Daniel was not visited just by an angel (cherub / seraph) but the Lord himself. Then how could the Lord be detained by the Prince of Persia who opposed him?
This is an argument from logical errors, John. The names for them are "begging the question" and "Illicit negative" or "argument from silence". There is only one thing that silence on an issue proves , and that is silence. The logical fallacy of "begging the question" happens when a person states the conclusion of the proposition (michael=jesus) as a fact, and then asks as you did "Who else could it be other than Jesus?"
No I am not here to "hammer you about logical fallacies", but it is important that God's people do not attempt to " prove" something by a fallacious application of God's Word.
By the same thing that prolongs his return now. His plan. And his abiding by his own plan. Or in the case of the opposition of the Prince of Persia, God's adherence to a prearranged agreement over territory / people.
Please tell me the relevance of this to your thesis that michael=jesus.
Think God does not limit himself?
Can you tell us what logical fallacies may be used here?
If you answered "begging the question" or "circular reasoning" you would be correct
God limited himself from the very moment he created anything to exist besides himself. He was therefore no longer the only one or thing in existence. That's a limitation.
The self-limitations, which God imposed upon Himself is critical. One of the prime ones being that He can never deny Himself. When Jesus was asked "Are you the Christ" he never said otherwise. See
John 6:69
John 7:26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?
27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?
<SNIP>
41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was
John 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
.
I believe that I made my point here
Read Job chapters one and two about him entering into bargains with no less than satan.
Please be specific as to what you mean here.
God knows the end from the beginning and is the great orchestrator of all things. This is his sovereignty over all things. But along the way, he has imposed self limitations to grant men and the heavenly host choice.
Please explain the relevance of this to support your thesis that michael=jesus.
BTW you will notice that when I made the "michael=jesus" statement I did so because by adding to the Hypostatic Union of Jesus being 100% God and 100% human simultaneously, without any confusion nor any mixture of the natures of the One Divine Person Jesus it is actually diminishing who Jesus of the Bible is, and in my opinion an attempt to insinuate that Archangel Michael died for our sins.
Curious.
Are you perchance a Seventh Day Adventist?
