Is it true that Michael Flatly [ Lord of the dance]?
952961
Don't worry,he's recovering so he'll be back.
1049620
Yes...He is the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings...the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end.\nAmen
309806
And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolk, nor of his friends.  (KJV)\n\nYHVH is true name of I AM THAT I AM\nYHVH had to be very strict on the nation of ISRAEL, so that the prophesies could prove that the MESSIAH had come from this nation. baal worship is idolitry.\ni do not understand all your question.\nhttp://www.shepherdschapel.com
288779
I think his weird behavior as of late has pretty much overshadowed his acting ability.  It's kind of like "Michael Jackson Syndrome" - Michael was a great entertainer back in the day, but now whenever you think of him, you think about the scandal related to him & not "the king of pop."
993079
I did not know this. I am Christian, and actually that is quite a conerning teaching. falesy and twisting of the Lords truth, are the first thing that come to mind. Jesus Christ is the Saviour, our Lord and Christ, not michael the archangel. concerning.
200923
Tsk tsk tsk..**shakes head**\n\nCOME ON PEOPLE!!! yes, yes, yes, I know that Michael J. Fox is short. But are you forgetting about Yoda?? No one is shorter AND more powerful. As far as the Parkinsons, pfffffffft!!! I heard Michael singing:\n\n ♫ Ain't nothin' gonna breaka my stride.....ain't nothing gonna slow me down. Oh no! I've gotta keep a movin'! ♫\n\nOk so his taste in music sucks, but what an attitude eh??\n\nAnd think about it!! He is brilliant. If he can travel to the past and then to the future, while being a Ronald Regan wannabe, WHILE battling Skippy and Malory......he can certainly take on the Dark Force!\n\nYes, MJF has my vote for jedi!!!
1141686
I never heard him say he was!! I think that's just your wishful thinking!\n\n♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥
725380
People are talking about all the false allegations made against him and the lies that the filthy press made up about him! All he has really become is the King Of Pop and the best singer, dancer and performer EVER!!\n\n♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥
1128615
yes I do.  Not because of any novel out there.  I have believed this for years.  I base this on the Bible itself.\n\n1) In John chapter 2 Mary (Mother) goes to Jesus and tells him that the wine is gone.  According to Jewish tradition only the Groom is responsible for the wedding feast.  Unless he was the groom why would Mary care about the wine being gone and why would Christ risk offending the Groom and his family by interviening by turning the water to wine and therefore making more wine for the feast.\n\n2) Under Jewish tradition only a married man could be a Rabbi.  So unless he had married he could not have been called Rabbi. \n\n3) Mary M. helped dress his body for burrial. Unless she was a wife, sister, mother or aunt dressng a body (seeing a man nude, even dead) was not allowed.  It would have been an obseane act on her part.  Since we know she was not sister, mother or aunt that would leave wife.\n\n4) The very first person he appeared to after his reserection was Mary M. That would be an act I accociate with a spouse other wise it would have been an aposle or other family member.\n\n5) Now why was it not spelled out clearer in the Bible?  Maybe it was a given and the writers of the Gospels included in the Bible didn't think it was important enough to mention beyond what they did. Or may be it was discussed clearer in books that were not included in the Bible. Or maybe out of respect for Mary M and to avoid her being disparraged as Jesus as been they choose not to be clear about her relationship with Christ. \n\nNow did they have any children?  I have no idea, I don't think this is important to go into further. But I do think we should acknowledge what Christ taught us and follow him as he is our Savior and Messiah, that he died for us.  This is what is important not these other things.
308178
I would have to argue with you that Micky Mouse was the real god. I don't believe that a true god would proclaim to the world that he was the omniscient, omnipotent creater of the universe, and thus be guilty of the deadly sin of pride. I have never herd Micky Mouse proclaim that he is god therefore, because he is so humble, he must be the true god.
245523
No. He is a musician (bass player) and record producer. He does have a brother named Michael, but it's not that Michael.
1012847
Michael is still awesome and he always will be the KING OF POP!! The others are ok.\n\n♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥
4834
It is somewhat true.  Try this one instead, the better they are on the dancefloor, the better their potential in bed.  Or, the more knowledgable of their dance techniques, the better knowledgable they will be in bed.  Or even this one, the less consious on the dancefloor, the less inhibited they will be in bed.\n\nDo these make a little more sense?
844324
This is a really stupid question!!!\n\n♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥
585460
Nope.  He wasn't the first person to bill himself as the messiah, nor was he the last.  he mixed political stances with rippped of teachings from the Torah and Rabbis of the time.  He did not teach anything new or exceptional, but merely sought popularism through taking stances that would appeal to the masses.
921744
Hello!\n\nThis is a good question and am glad you asked it.\n\nThe Bible says,\n\n"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Revelation 12:7-9).\n\nAccording to this Bible verse, it seems that it was Michael who cast the devil out of Heaven (of course, we're not setting aside what Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 say about this theme). At least we know He fought against the devil and defeated him.\n\nThe question is, who is Michael?\n\nMany things have been said about this Archangel. One of the most mysterious Characters in the Bible, for sure.\n\nThe word "angel" is the greek word for "messenger". The word "arch" means "chief". So Michael is the Chief of the angels (it's very possible it was Him who appeared to Joshua). The Name of this Archangel gives us another clue too: the Name "Michael" means "Who is like God"; it might be a question too: "Who is like God?". By studying what is said about Him in the Scriptures, we conclude that Michael is actually Jesus Christ. Let's go to the Biblical evidences:\n\n(The following was quoted from this webpage:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/jesusothername.htm)\n\n\nWhat biblical evidence supports the teaching that Michael is another name for Jesus?\n\n      The name Michael is used five times in the Bible to designate a celestial being (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7). He is nowhere explicitly identified with Jesus, but some Christian writers have equated the two by carefully comparing the role played by Michael with that of Jesus. Any comparisons yield not only similarities but also dissimilarities, and both should be taken into account. We'll start with the passages in which Michael is mentioned and then broaden the horizon to include several passages that are conceptually related to His person and experience.\n      1. He seems to be an angel: Michael is identified as "one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10:13), "your prince" (verse 21), "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1), and "the archangel" (Jude 9). "Archangel" implies that He is the prince of the angels, suggesting that Michael cannot be another name for Jesus because He is divine and angels are created beings. \n      Part of the problem is that the noun "angel" is taken to designate a creature, while in the Bible it designates a function. In other words, an "angel" is a being who functions as a "messenger" of God. In most cases they are created beings, but there is an exception.\n      In the Old Testament there are several references to the "angel [messenger] of the Lord" in which He is equated with God (e.g., Ex. 3:2, 4; Judges 6:12, 14). It is not that the Messenger is identified with the One who sent Him as His representative, but rather that the Sender functions at the same time as the Messenger. Many Christians have identified the Angel of the Lord as the preincarnate Christ. This Christological interpretation seems to be biblically valid.\n      2. He is leader of the angels: The phrase "one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10:13) could give the impression that He is one among many princes. But according to Revelation 12:7, Michael is the supreme leader of the heavenly angels, or "the great prince." When necessary, He personally assists angels in their assigned tasks (Dan. 10:13), yet the angelic hosts are under His command (Rev. 12:7). He is indeed the "archangel" (Jude 9). This title is mentioned in one other place in the Bible: 1 Thesselonians 4:16, in the context of th
454639
No -one knows what his demonsration was, that was the whole point.\nBut it has been proved subsequentally. See the second link