@OneGodOneLord Jesus is given clear titles, other things are given clear titles. Not sure what you are getting at. A⇏B (Also the angel in 14:14 would also run into the issue of point 6 if it was supposed to also be Christ... )

It all reads perfectly fine if one is able to consider that Christ and Michael are one, but of course you won't entertain that idea and that's why you have difficulty in the understanding thereof.

@OldeEnglish Considering that my answer is based on the perspective of the eastern orthodox church, I fail to see why I would present something that would be considered blasphemous heresy to their point of view. And if I answer a question from the perspective of the catholic church, I don't use things that they would consider anathema either. If I answer a question about the perspective of those who trust the watch tower, I will also present them as accurately as possible. To my understanding that is the way this and the CSE website are supposed to function. Correct?

@OldeEnglish I appreciate your position. From my Pov what you just said is akin to "I have this new novel invention, it is like a disk with a hole in the center"... and I look at you and I wonder why you believe you need to reinvent the wheel. We should read and attempt to understand, but if we come to conclusions that fly against the whole of Sacred Tradition, we should understand that we are wrong. In this case Angelomorphic Christology, was never accepted by the church. It is a modern invention of mankind that if reviewed critically changes the gospel from hope to darkness. Perhaps Chat?

The wheel, as you say, was reinvented in the 4th Century, starting with the council of Nicea, in 325 BC. The falsity of religious belief got only worse from there. Then when the Catholic Church emerged out of the Caesaro-papism era in 538 AD to become the sole authority in all things religious, at least as it pertained to Christianity, they proceeded to make alterations in times and in law ... for a time, times, and half a time (1260 years) Dan, 7:25. Napolean, in 1798, brought at least a temporary halt to that abuse of power....tbc...

...ctd... The belief in Angelomorphic Christology, while never accepted by that church, or even Protestantism - which was the first real break in the so called "Sacred Tradition" - came about with the advent of further break out religions, in the Christian theme, most predominant of whom were the JW's, who not only brought this AC belief to the fore but also, rightly I might add, questioned the long held concept of the "Trinity", that had been the core concept of religious understanding for some 1500 years. The wheel now having turned full circle, to my mind at least ...tbc further ...

... and not just mine, does not change the gospel from hope to darkness, but actually changes it from darkness to hope. I, personally, see things so much more clearly now. Sorry, did not mean to go on for so long but there we are ....

@OldeEnglish Then where do church fathers from 180AD write about the Trinity? Look if you want to chat, let's chat. This debate in the comments section is not helpful for other users.

The problem with Angelomorphic Christology is that if God didn't incarnate as a human, there is no direct connection between God and Humanity. The dual natures of Christ matter because that fulfills every other thing. Like he is the sole mediator between God and Humanity. (That they may be one, just as we are one. I in you, and you in me, and I in the Father. )

I got that line at the end from OneGodOneLord... he thought it was helpful to disprove the trinity... but it totally supports it.

But anyways... your claim about it starting somehow in 325, is historically inaccurate.

While at the time, we both know, that the issue of clearly attempting to define the incomprehensible (God) was not as strong... (perhaps due to the fact that Christians were getting killed by the romans... who can say why they didn't sit around and think about these things in detail...)

So... the understanding of the Triune nature of God was clearly something understood before the persecution of Nero/Domician had ended.

(I mean honestly... selling forgiveness... )

From my side... My church (eastern orthodox) has not changed core "Dogma" or "Doctrine" since the last of the 7th ecumenical councils. There are minor changes to "tradition" but never to "Sacred Tradition". That is to say, we have maintained unaltered the core beliefs and faith has handed down from the apostles.

As far as I can tell from research the understanding of the Triune nature of God has existed since the apostles. So it wasn't "reinvented" as most people like to believe.

It just was clearly defined later, when bishops could actually be locked into a room together without being caught and killed. :)

The statement “generate and ingenerate” appears to be a parallelism with “flesh and spirit,” flesh being “generate” and the spirit of Christ (i.e. His divine essence, because “God is spirit” according to John 4:24) being ingenerate. Hence, Ignatius is asserting that Christ in His divinity is eternal. Christ is not an emanation or highly ranked angel. He is plainly eternal God.