Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by Drex

Uh...who believes the Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus?

I mean, in my church we believe that Michael the Archangel is Adam, and that makes sense to me. It's more feasible given Revelation and the things in there.

Woah, where did you get THAT?
First, Da Joker:
Are you by chance Jehovah's Witnesses or something?
Michael is an angel, a creation of God.
Jesus is the son of God. As son of God, Jesus is also God. After all, bees beget bees, birds beget birds, humans beget humans, and thusly God begets God.
These are only illustrations to help us understand what exactly is going on. It in no way is meant to be an infallible example.
Jesus, however, is not a creation of God.
Why would a creation, Michael, be the ULTIMATE penance for our sins? He is just another creature, unblemished and blameless perhaps, but the sacrifice of Michael (if this were true) would not be sufficient to clear the whole of mankind's sins.

Going with what Drex said: If Michael is Adam, then what are we?

Duo: I am curious, what did you think that made you conclude that you could not continue believing? I am well aware that this might be a lengthy answer, but so long as bobo keeps paying the bills, we got time. ^_^

There's nowhere I can't reach.

"Quote Wars" ahead.

Originally Posted by Da Joker

Firstly, no, I am not a Jehovah's Witness. Seeing as Jehovah is a completely made up name, it would be odd.

Jehovah is one of the Hebrew names for God, and THE most often used term in the Old Testament.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
(Yes, I know, NewAdvent is a Catholic source, but they are very reliable and factual)
Nonetheless, it is most certainly NOT a made up name.

Quote:

Secondly, the name Michael makes up the phrase "He who is equal to God." Most concordances render it "Who is like."

No, that is not true. It is in fact a querious name. It means "Who is like God?" Breaking it down, the Hebrew word is "Miyka'el," it is composed of 3 roots, Miy, which is an interrogative term (meaning that it specifically asks a question), Kiy, which is just a relational word, meaning something to the effect of "like," and el, which is a common suffix on words relating to God.

Most certainly Michael is not equal to God. If he were, then he would BE God, but this equating is not seen in the Bible.

Quote:

Now, taking context into consideration, the Bible usually uses either Prince or Archangel in front of the name, though both titles both mean cheif prince in the Hebrew & Greek. From here, we can go to Daniel. In Daniel 12:1 Michael is reffered to as the great prince of Israel. Earlier, in Daniel 10, he was the only one that could keep Satan, called Prince of Persia (i.e. Babylon) at bay.
Some will use Jude 9 as a contradiction to this belief,citing the verse in which Michael says "Lord rebuke you." Jesus did the same thing when praying while he was alive, referring to God as if they were seperate entities, when in reality they were on in the same (OMG, potentially more drama!).
Revelation 7:8 is an allusion to Luke 10:18. Revelation 1:8 also leads us back to Daniel 10. Michael could not only hold Satan at bay, but overcome him completely.
In conclusion, Prince Michael is a title. Loosely translated it would mean, the "Chief prince of Israel, Who is equal to God."

Michael may be a "Prince" of Israel, but that still does not equate him with the King of Israel.
Nor does "Archangel" mean chief of princes. Angel, actually "mal'ak," means messenger, etc. From Strong's concordance:
"from an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher)"
Archangel pretty much means chief angel.

Btw, Revelations 7:8 says the following: "from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000."
Also, how the heck do you make the jump from Revelations 1:8 to Daniel 10?
It seems to me that you are very confused about the context.

Quote:

To be quite Frank, all this quasi angel worship, as well as the popular angel beliefs are pagan, not Christian. A little research will lead you to the same conclusion.

A lot of the popular beliefs on angels are indeed pure fiction. However, so it seems also is your conclusion about equating Michael with Jesus.
It seems to fit, because there is nothing that directly contradicts that idea, but that doesn't mean that it is right.
Ultimately, your ideas are full of holes and unfounded assumptions, as well as a misunderstanding of Hebrew. You are making connections that appear to exist, but only in English translations.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Igod82

a_priori - The BreakDown of the Word Micha'EL and all names in Hebrew Ending in (EL). I had a interesting site i used to read about this, and it also gave names of books to read - and of people who had worked on translating old Hebrew language and other semetic languages. If i recall the main Theme of it was this. That the El was tooken from the EL'OHIM word. If i recall the Translation of Micha'el's name was more in the line of POWERFULL GOD. And some of the books that i had read outlined references and similarities in the Hebrew old testament - to Semetic religions of the region. Ill have to look up the names of the books and sites, as i read alot of this stuff when i was in highschool.

I don't know how they could possibly interpret the name Michael to mean "powerful god." Look that stuff up, but I am sure they will be easily refutable.
The syllble "El" is indeed derived from Elohim.
Elohim, however, only means "heavenly beings." It's a generic suffix that refers to any being of heavenly origin, I guess. Not just referring to God alone.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I have not heard of a single Hebrew scholar who says that ancient Hebrew is of any significance different from modern Hebrew.
This does not mean I am saying that they do not exist... but it does make your statements suspect.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Igod82

Do Jews know a secret about preserving language in its exact form for thousands of years we dont?

Yes.
Regard their religious texts as holy, making it sacreligious to change any, as well as making their religious texts the primary source for learning the language.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?