Members don't want to click links to get to your point. If you want to say something, then say it, don't try to force us to go into other sites. Thanks.
That's fine sister, to each their own prerogative, and I am not here to force anyone to do anything that they do not want to do. I personally, find the direct sourcing of materials very helpful in online conversation, so that there is no question as to the quotation / reference. Please consider my reasoning behind the links, here -
Is there a Michael - Jesus connection in scripture? What is the history of this?
I will copy that linked response and provide it again here, so that none have to "click links":
"That's fine sister, it's no big deal if people do not avail themselves of the links directly. The links are for the direct source material from which a quotation, or reference, is coming from (so, for instance if a quotation or reference is coming from page 3, then the link takes one directly to that page so that the reader may easily find it for themselves as they need), so to be as clear and transparent as possible. Even in the sources, are other sources which are given in such a manner, so that anyone (in this digital age) can easily find and access where said quotation or reference is coming from. Even the quotations from the scripture are given (generally in brackets), so that any may have quick access to that location in scripture to read for themselves. In most of my responses, online, this is the way I operate, as in the past (on other media platforms, forums, &c.) I have been accused by others (none here in this forum that I am aware of) of 'making stuff up', and so I have come to simply present the source material by page number, location, and entire book title so that such accusations are reduced. This practice has helped in reducing such baseless accusations, and been a blessing to others looking for such quotations / references. Another reason that the research is provided in such a way, as in the past (years ago), I used to merely give a quotation without first checking the source material, and simply believed what others have said, or presented in their own responses, materials, &c., and have been embarrassed on one or two occasions, because a source I had borrowed from others was 2nd or 3rd hand repeated, and is incorrect (telephone game) from one historian to another, or from religious theologian to another, or from one translation to another. I had then vowed back then to not ever do that again, and always go to the primary source, in the original languages where possible, and directly provide the material / evidence / research in question with direct links to those materials (even though the internet is an ever-shifting mass, and sometimes the wayback machine is needful), so that any may have quick access to the material.
I have also had to contact various religious and secular libraries about certain sources and quotations, and even individual researchers (like myself), and had to have them re-verify the source material under examination. On several occasions (and I may provide examples as needful), those libraries and individuals had to correct their own material, or go find their own lost / misplaced material, by my simply asking them about a certain thing.
For instance, I have found some theologians, and representatives of certain religious orders (such as say, Catholicism), say that 'the Pope said ... such and such', and I have had to ask them for the source materials, and on occasion they have had to withdraw their own claim, as such a quotation doesn't actually exist, or it came from some 3rd hand summation in a newspaper, and so I do not desire to make the same mistake, on such, or any others. This is one of the primary reasons I provided the linked materials on anything.
So, on the subject of Michael the archangel, in the OP linked source, and many links to the direct sources cited themselves, most of which are non-Seventh-day Adventist sources. This method of so reporting on the sources is not meant to be "spammy"; it is truly meant to be open and transparent. I hope that this explanation provides some better understanding of my responses and methods."
The original OP linked material is for general discussion, and ease of access on the topic. For instance, if I had just said, or asked, 'Hey, what does the Bible say about wine?' it would seem as if I were coming from an ignorant position on the subject. In presenting the linked material in the OP, it demonstrates that I am coming from a well-read (prayerfully studied) and learned position on the subject, and am able to discuss with others in this forum on the subject with clarity and have the documentation and evidences that sustain the position / belief / practice. This does not seem tot uncommon here, in this forum, or in others I have been in, as many will simply post a 'video' or 'diatribe', or 'study', and ask others to watch it, read it, listen to it, and then comment on / respond to it afterwards, and rarely does moderation, or membership in that forum have issue with such. I did not think that what I was doing was so offensive as to receive comments about my method in presenting a subject for discussion. I was hoping to discuss the topic, not the method.
In summation, members do not have to "click links" (no force is involved here, but request is made). The links, pagination and titles, &c., are there for documentation, transparency, and ease of access for any who desire to utilize them. It took a long time to find some of the source materials under various discussions, and so I like to always share what I find with others, so that all may have them freely.
So, I will say this, to attempt to get the thread back on the topic, instead of the method.
Many which take the name of Christian, honestly (but mistakenly) think that Jesus' life and blood is represented by an in
toxicating substance which is never safe to consume as it affects not only the body (unto decay and death) but also the mind (unto the same). Some of those same persons think or say that 'moderation' means allowance in all things, but just a little. Yet, scriptural "temperance" does not teach this. The scriptures teach that "temperance" has three phases:
'Green light' (always); as for instance, love is never restricted at any time
'Yellow light' (sometimes); as for instance, in some instances conscience is involved or some other exception, or over extension is involved
'Red light' (never); as for instance, sin is never ok'ed under any circumstance
In such an example, these persons, looking for justification for their belief and practices, turn to Jesus in the scripture, such as at the wedding feast of Cana, but do not consider the events more carefully, and so have true reasoning (God's' in the text) on the subject, and end up erring in their vision.
Think about what jars Jesus used to turn 'water into wine' (as the Vine does in the field), in that they were not just any ordinary jars to be filled with any thing that the people wanted. The waterpots were for “
purifying” (Jhn. 2:6) or cleansing (sanctifying, making holy) the body of mankind, and as such, only the ‘pure’ and ‘sweet’ would be allowed into them, and nothing of fermentation, profane (unholy;
Lev. 10:9-11 KJB), bitterness (
Isa. 5:11-13,20-22 KJB), corruption or ‘excess’ (
Eph. 5:18 KJB).
