Revelation 10 - the Q'uran?

[MorningGlory]

 

 

 

Revelation 22:8 and 9, - the angels consider themselves as fellow servants of God. They do not swear by heaven or God as Jesus said we should not

No, angels are not FELLOW servants of God.  That would imply God is also a servant, which He is not.  Angels are THE servants of God.

 

 

So the angel in Revelation 10 can be none other than Christ, seeing that the entire book is of Him - "the revelation of Jesus Christ."

An angel is a created being, Jesus is not.   This is totally wrong.

 

 

Hi MorningGlory,

 

Yes an angel is a created being. A lion, a lamb, an owl, a hen, etc are all God`s creations. Plus gem stones, furniture, stars, sun, rocks, flowers etc, all created by God. All these & more are used to represent some aspect of our glorious Lord. Otherwise how could we in our earthly minds understand such a heavenly being who actually is God.

 

Marilyn. 

 

 

I don't think we can, Marilyn.  At least not until we get to the Kingdom. 

[Ezra]

all scripture is centred on one purpose & that is to reveal Christ to us in all His glory.

Exactly.  Therefore for you, or anyone else, to confuse Christ with an angel, or even suggest that any angel in Revelaton is Christ, not only detracts from His glory, but promotes false doctrine.  I trust that is not your intention, therefore it would be best for you to retract what you are trying to promote.  The cults (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.)  promote Michael the Archangel as being Jesus Christ, but that is heretical doctrine.  Remember that John says under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit "And I saw ANOTHER MIGHTY ANGEL..." (Rev 1:10), not "And I saw JESUS..."

[Kan]

Did Abraham, for lack of better description, call Jesus the Angel of the Lord? He goes on to say that he had fought with God..seen Him face to face?

Today with our knowledge we still struggle with who Melchizedek was.....without beginning, without end, without mother, without father. To us the only one that has that background is Christ, to some he was the king of Salem..Jerusalem, a man. How else could Abraham have described Jesus but as an Angel of the Lord...yes I do seem to contradict myself..but in this one instance alone ...Abraham fought with God.

 

Yes, Jacob fought with God, whom he thought was a man, and later described as the Angel of the Lord, because the Angel made a promise saying "I will bless you." If it were an angel, he would have said "God will bless you."

 

So God or Christ is not literally an angel or a man, and yet Abraham met Christ in the form of a man, with two other 'men,' which were disguised angels. These sat down to eat and the promise for Isaac was made by Christ.

 

So Christ is spoken of as the Angel of the Lord on many occasions, and on one occasion appeared as a fully armed soldier, a man of high ranking, to Joshua.

In the battle in heaven, Christ became the leading angel - the archangel named Michael (meaning -who is like God?). See Rev 12.

The conflict between good and evil is not between two angels, if it were we have no guarantee of the outcome, but it is between Christ and an angel, Michael and Satan.

Christ as Michael leading the hosts of heavenly angels, and the devil leading his hosts of evil angels.

[Marilyn C]

 

all scripture is centred on one purpose & that is to reveal Christ to us in all His glory.

Exactly.  Therefore for you, or anyone else, to confuse Christ with an angel, or even suggest that any angel in Revelaton is Christ, not only detracts from His glory, but promotes false doctrine.  I trust that is not your intention, therefore it would be best for you to retract what you are trying to promote.  The cults (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.)  promote Michael the Archangel as being Jesus Christ, but that is heretical doctrine.  Remember that John says under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit "And I saw ANOTHER MIGHTY ANGEL..." (Rev 1:10), not "And I saw JESUS..."

 

Hi Ezra,

 

Dear bro, you are much too quick to label something `false doctrine.` Do you realise that the eminent  Dr. Charles Rolls, who was a founder & a dean of Bible schools  in many parts of the world taught this truth. He was one of the most highly respected teachers of his time. (last century) He is my reference. I think you need to research what other great teachers say & not just rely on your own ideas, if that is what they are.

 

By your logic, that the Holy Spirit through John would have had to say `I saw Jesus,` then shouldn`t we have to apply that to Rev. 5: 6?

 

`And I (John) looked & behold, in the midst of the throne & of the four living creatures, & in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain.` (Rev. 5: 6)

 

We see a Lamb. John does not say `I saw Jesus.` Now why do we believe that the Lamb represents Christ? Because of God`s word describing that aspect of Christ in other places in His word. It is the same with the `another angel,` `not the same angel,` who represents Christ as the mediator between God & man, for God has given us in His word the details to show us it is Christ. You need to do some more research Ezra.

 

Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

Hi Kan,

 

It is good that you believe that Christ is represented by an angel at times. However in Revelation 12 where Michael is mentioned, it is actually Michael the arch angel, otherwise God would not have named him. If you change the name of Michael there you would have to do it in all the other places that he is mentioned & then who is to say when he is & when he isn`t himself???

 

I do like the way you speak to others, Kan. I think the Aussie fellows are doing well on here with there attitudes.

 

Blessings, Marilyn.

[Kan]

 

 

Revelation 22:8 and 9, - the angels consider themselves as fellow servants of God. They do not swear by heaven or God as Jesus said we should not

 

No, angels are not FELLOW servants of God.  That would imply God is also a servant, which He is not.  Angels are THE servants of God.

 

 

 

So the angel in Revelation 10 can be none other than Christ, seeing that the entire book is of Him - "the revelation of Jesus Christ."

 

An angel is a created being, Jesus is not.   This is totally wrong.

 

 

I quoted Revelation 22:8 and 9 where the angel says to John "I am your fellow servant" So "the angels are fellow servants (with man) of God." Sorry, about the ambiguity.

 

An angel cannot swear by the Lord unless he is the Lord. Please see the verses supplied, in Hebrews and Daniel.

I see that as Paul's interpretation.

 

However, if you accept the doctrine that Jesus is never the Angel of the Lord, then of course, you would have to reject the above.

 

If you read the articles linked in my previous posts, you will get another view of the Angel of the Lord, at least then you will be able to see both sides.

[Kan]

The fact that John by Divine revelation calls the angel of Revelation 10 "ANOTHER mighty angel" (v 1) should be sufficient to confirm that this is merely an angel, and just as there were angels associated with the trumpet judgments in the previous chapter ANOTHER ANGEL (distinct from the preceding angels) has come on the scene for a different purpose.  There is no way that the Holy Spirit would call the Lord Jesus Christ "another angel"!

 

Furthermore, another solid reason why the angel who stands simultaneously upon the earth and upon the sea (and lifts up his hand to Heaven) is NOT CHRIST is that a voice from Heaven is distinct from this angel, and commands John to take the little book out of the hand of this angel (v 8).  That same voice had earlier commanded John to seal up the things which the seven thunders had uttered (v 4). That voice can be none other than the voice of God, or the voice of Christ, speaking while that angel stands on earth.

 

Yes an angel is a created being. A lion, a lamb, an owl, a hen, etc are all God`s creations. Plus gem stones, furniture, stars, sun, rocks, flowers etc, all created by God. All these & more are used to represent some aspect of our glorious Lord. Otherwise how could we in our earthly minds understand such a heavenly being who actually is God.

This comment has no relevance whatsoever, and does not clarify who that angel is.  If anything, it obfuscates the issue.

 

While Christ is depicted and named the angel of the Lord, the angels of Revelation are sometimes literal, like when the angel speaks to John, and at other times they are symbolic of a message, a message from Christ.

The term "another angel" in chapter 10 is used in the same way as the angel's messages in Chapter 14.

This one in chapter 10 is in the context of the six previous angels, which are icons of the symbolic language that comes with each.

 

So then "another angel" is not talking about another created being, but another message.

 

The descriptions of the angel are clues to the identity of the source and importance of the message.

Every angel, other than the one which talks to John, is a symbol of a message, which is seen in the beginning of Revelation as a star in Christ's hand. So we are not talking about created beings, but messages of Christ, and if the angel swears by heaven or has a face like the sun, then we know it is more directly a message from Christ, rather than just a prediction of events or whatever.

 

This angel with the rainbow, describes the dealings of Christ to His people at the time.

[Kan]

Hi Kan,

 

It is good that you believe that Christ is represented by an angel at times. However in Revelation 12 where Michael is mentioned, it is actually Michael the arch angel, otherwise God would not have named him. If you change the name of Michael there you would have to do it in all the other places that he is mentioned & then who is to say when he is & when he isn`t himself???

 

I do like the way you speak to others, Kan. I think the Aussie fellows are doing well on here with their attitudes.

 

Blessings, Marilyn.

 

As you said, if we apply the name Michael in Revelation 12 to Christ, we would have to apply it elsewhere to be consistent.

 

There are a few Michael's in the OT, which are defined as men by the context, and then we only have 3 books in the rest of the Bible which use the name referring to a Prince - Daniel 10, and 12, Jude verse 9 and Revelation 12.

Strong's concordance also delineates the name in the same way.

 

The great Prince which stands up for God's people? Daniel 12:1, it is interesting that up to that time Christ is not in the office of a Prince or King, but a Priest in the sanctuary above. Could this be when the priesthood of Christ is over, when all that could have been done for the world is done? That He stands as the Prince for His people?

 

I think going by the language of Daniel 9, it is possible, that Christ is that Prince.

 

Personally I don't concern myself what people conclude about the names, so long as they love and respect God and any of His messengers. We'll find out the details when we are in heaven.

 

PS. Aussies are more chilled out for sure, we have to be to withstand the summer.

[Kan]

 

all scripture is centred on one purpose & that is to reveal Christ to us in all His glory.

Exactly.  Therefore for you, or anyone else, to confuse Christ with an angel, or even suggest that any angel in Revelaton is Christ, not only detracts from His glory, but promotes false doctrine.  I trust that is not your intention, therefore it would be best for you to retract what you are trying to promote.  The cults (Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.)  promote Michael the Archangel as being Jesus Christ, but that is heretical doctrine.  Remember that John says under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit "And I saw ANOTHER MIGHTY ANGEL..." (Rev 1:10), not "And I saw JESUS..."

 

 

I don't know if you read my earlier post where I gave 3 links on the topic from the perspective of the 'cults' as you call them. I found the third reference/link is rather in depth and revealing. 

 

I was able to examine the links with ease, because I am not bound to defend any particular religion, so I was able to check the texts in my KJV, to see if they were in context, and not just suggestive.

 

I did not know that several other denominations hold these views on the name Michael (the prince of thy people) until I googled it.

 

The texts don't ever suggest Christ is a created being, but the Angel of the Lord is clearly the Son on many occasions, as proven, particularly in the 3rd link.

 

Prior to this time, I have always believed that Michael in Daniel, Jude and Revelation was Jesus or even God, and I don't know why, because I have read it unassisted by other religious material. I assumed it was another one of Christ's many names. ,When I was 12, Christ was my hero, and I guess I wanted Him to be Michael that fought the dragon.

[Marilyn C]

 

Hi Kan,

 

It is good that you believe that Christ is represented by an angel at times. However in Revelation 12 where Michael is mentioned, it is actually Michael the arch angel, otherwise God would not have named him. If you change the name of Michael there you would have to do it in all the other places that he is mentioned & then who is to say when he is & when he isn`t himself???

 

I do like the way you speak to others, Kan. I think the Aussie fellows are doing well on here with their attitudes.

 

Blessings, Marilyn.

 

As you said, if we apply the name Michael in Revelation 12 to Christ, we would have to apply it elsewhere to be consistent.

 

There are a few Michael's in the OT, which are defined as men by the context, and then we only have 3 books in the rest of the Bible which use the name referring to a Prince - Daniel 10, and 12, Jude verse 9 and Revelation 12.

Strong's concordance also delineates the name in the same way.

 

The great Prince which stands up for God's people? Daniel 12:1, it is interesting that up to that time Christ is not in the office of a Prince or King, but a Priest in the sanctuary above. Could this be when the priesthood of Christ is over, when all that could have been done for the world is done? That He stands as the Prince for His people?

 

I think going by the language of Daniel 9, it is possible, that Christ is that Prince.

 

Personally I don't concern myself what people conclude about the names, so long as they love and respect God and any of His messengers. We'll find out the details when we are in heaven.

 

PS. Aussies are more chilled out for sure, we have to be to withstand the summer.

 

Hi Kan,

 

 yeah, to withstand the summer. Now concerning the Lord, He has & always will be `King of Glory,`(Ps. 24: 10)  `King of Heaven,` (Dan. 4: 37) `King of the Ages,`( 1 Tim: 1: 17) etc....plus His priesthood is eternal. (Heb. 7: 24) So you may have to think again on this.

 

Marilyn.