It will be difficult to understand the human condition without properly understanding universal law.

For example, what authority did Satan have to torture Job in Job 2:1-7 for no reason?

Well, Luke 4:6 clearly shows Satan is the king of the earth, and he gives power to whomever he pleases (1 John 5:19).

Okay, but how did it happen? Humans rejected God’s support in Eden and sided with a rebellious sect (Satan, meaning “resistor”) and as long as humanity sides with that sect they will be dealt as co-conspirators along with that rebellion under universal law.

We now harbour the demons on earth (Rev 12:7-9) and there is apparently a Demon pulling strings behind every nation (Dan 10:13, Dan 10:20,21). This bodes badly for us, although Michael, also called Jesus, is very fond and cares greatly about humans and wishes to spare many.

▲

mapontosevenths 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Luke 4:6 is a direct quote from the devil, as he's tempting Jesus in the garden. The devil can lie.

	▲	aetherspawn 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah that’s interesting… well do you think Satan would have tried to lie to Jesus, the King, who knew everything. That’s obviously not going to work, and Satan is smarter than that. Jesus didn’t dispute Satan on his claim either. Satan’s main angle was to tempt Jesus’ ambition, which would have been useless if Satan didn’t have the authority to actually offer the throne of Earth. In Rev 13:2 (2-4 for context) Satan “the dragon” (identified in Rev 20:2) gives the symbolic beast authority over the Earth. Meaning of beast explained Dan 7:23 (15-24 for context) Thinking about it … if Satan doesn’t have authority over Earth, 1) then Jesus would be king of earth, hence why would Satan bother to tempt Jesus giving him authority he already had? , and 2) why would Jesus permit Demons to rule nations on Earth, previously cited. Jesus would have cleared out his own house prior to coming.

▲

mapontosevenths 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Michael, also called Jesus

Is this a Jehovah's Witness thing? I'd never heard it before today.

▲

aetherspawn 5 days ago | parent [-]

Michael is the archangel (Jude 9) and 1 Thess 4:16 say Jesus is also (14-16 for context), so if there is one archangel then they are the same person.

Not uncommon to receive a new name after a significant event, for example Saul renamed to Paul, Jacob to Israel. Or maybe Michael is just the name used by angels and Jesus is what was picked by his human parents.

▲

mapontosevenths 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's an interesting take, but it all sort of hinges on the exact translation you use because it leans heavily on interpreting one particular sentence, and even one word in a very particular way. In this case it seems to be the word "the" in the phrase "the archangel." That's dangerous, and I'd love to talk about why it's dangerous. Lets start here:

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Thessalonians%204%...

If we check out some of the other translations, we can see that Thessalonians 4:16 has been interpreted many ways over the years, so we'll just have to pick the one that seems closest to the original. Of course, you're free to pick another, but to me the one that makes the most sense is the legacy standard bible version, as they try very hard to stay close to the original greek, and also they italicize the words that a translator had to add themselves which weren't in the original. Remember that ancient Greek sentence structures weren't the same as English sentence structures, this happens a lot. Many other versions of the Bible just gloss over it.

So, in the LSB version, it reads "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a [b]shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first."

To me that sounds more like the lord is bringing a list of things with him, and one of the things on that list is an archangel to use as a voice, but more importantly the phrase "the archangel" is here which does imply that there is only one, even though it is often interpreted in other versions as "an archangel". Which one is the best translation?

Well there's a clue here. The word "the" is this version is one of the italicized words, meaning it was added by the translator, because it wasn't there at all in the original Greek. The other translators have just been picking whichever one "felt right" to them at the time.

If you're doubting this particular translation, you're free to manually translate that bit of Greek yourself or check one of the other more literal interpretations. I think the NASB version is also very good.

▲

aetherspawn 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Okay, I see what you are saying and I’m happy to put 1 Thess 4:16 completely aside a moment since I do not know Greek to be certain either way.

I do think there are holistically other reasons to conclude prince Michael and Jesus are the same, for example comparing the use of “stand up” in Dan 11:2,3,4 referring to kings, and then Dan 12:1.

Also there are parallel accounts of the prophecy regarding a great time of distress and resurrection in the last part of the days: 1 Thess 4:16b, Matt 21:23 and Dan 12:2, each describing the same foremost person, but they use Jesus and prince Michael interchangeably.

If this is not convincing then I just have to let it alone, it doesn’t really change the Bible’s message if Jesus is Michael or not. But it is good to hear from someone who cares as much as you do.

	▲	mapontosevenths 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> But it is good to hear from someone who cares as much as you do. I'm not a religious person, but I've read the bible a few times in different translations, and I do find it all very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective.

▲

aetherspawn 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I will read what you said later and get back to you.