Status
Not open for further replies.

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which version of the bible do the SDA use?

JW rely on their own and have changed John 1:1

The New Word Translation 9NWT) is in most people's opinion the very worst of all translations.

The Watchtower paid for it to be made so that what they believe could be changed in the Scriptures to match their false teachings.

Because the Jehovah's Witness organization denies the deity of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they have altered the text of God's word to reflect their presuppositions.

Please do not take my word for this. Do the investigative work with you computer and it will not take you but about 2 minutes to find out.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
MY! My! Thank you! I had forgotten those passages. Clearly---Michael was Jesus.
I don't know what you are missing. I've studied this subject for years, the site you quoted goes on to validate all her writings. Or didn't you know that? I had never used EGW to validate the concept that Michael and Jesus were one---I had only used the bible, read every instance in the bible---regarding the Captain of the Host, Angel of the Lord, each instance man bowed to this being and was never contradicted for doing so and in the same passage also referred to that being as God. Never happened with any other angel, always the admonition to not worship the angel--always, except with Michael, the Angel of the Lord, or the Captain of the Hosts. Just by the bible, Michael was another title for Jesus. And Jesus, Himself, referred to Himself as the I Am, which is what God told Moses to tell the Israelites, was His name. But I had not remembered her passages about this---thanks again. It has deepened my respect for her writings.

INCORRCT.

Jesus is the Creator therefore He created Michael!

The teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is an old, tired Arian argument. The early Adventist pioneers taught the heresy called "Arianism" which teaches that Jesus is not God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. Those who believe this false doctrine teach that Jesus is an exalted angel. Those, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who promote this heresy today teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

This early Adventist heresy appeared in several books and articles published by the church. It even manifested itself in the hymnology of the church. In the official Seventh-day Adventist hymnal, published from 1941 until its recent revision in 1985, the church had changed the words of the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy" which says, "God in three Persons, blessed Trinity" to "God overall who rules eternity."

Evidence of this doctrinal pollution is found in the writings of Ellen White:

"Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God...but Christ did not rebuke His adversary... He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, 'The Lord rebuke thee.'" Early Writings, p. 164 (emphasis added).

Jesus is Not Michael the Archangel
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
She would be incorrect and thus disqualified as a prophetess. Christ is God.

John 1:1 ......
"In the beginning was the WORD. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Colossians 1:16......
"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Since some doubt that "Michael is Jesus" is the teaching of the present day SDA church, here is an SDA Bible study which says just that. The study is under the headings

"The Adventist's Understanding of Prophecy,"
"SDA Sabbath School Commentary,"
and
"Who is Michael, Your Prince?"

The Bible study is signed by Garrick Augustus and was written in 2013.


Quote:
"Those who maintain that Michael is a mere angel, and thus a created being,know not the Scriptures nor the power of YHWH."


Link:
Who is Michael Your Prince?

In your opinion, would the information you just posted disqualify SDA's as Biblical Christians??????
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
INCORRCT.

Jesus is the Creator therefore He created Michael!

The teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is an old, tired Arian argument. The early Adventist pioneers taught the heresy called "Arianism" which teaches that Jesus is not God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. Those who believe this false doctrine teach that Jesus is an exalted angel. Those, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who promote this heresy today teach that Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

This early Adventist heresy appeared in several books and articles published by the church. It even manifested itself in the hymnology of the church. In the official Seventh-day Adventist hymnal, published from 1941 until its recent revision in 1985, the church had changed the words of the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy" which says, "God in three Persons, blessed Trinity" to "God overall who rules eternity."

Evidence of this doctrinal pollution is found in the writings of Ellen White:

"Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God...but Christ did not rebuke His adversary... He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, 'The Lord rebuke thee.'" Early Writings, p. 164 (emphasis added).

Jesus is Not Michael the Archangel

Well, as in most other cases---we believe completely differently. You could then provide a reason why this so called angel, and the Captain of the Host and the Lords angel all received worship from man.
And please remember the forum rules and try not to get this thread shut down. We are Christian and as such, the forum rules should be followed, this time. Once again , you are saying things that are not true.
I do not care what the Jehovah Witness's believe. We totally believe that Jesus is the One and Only Son of God---and God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Michael is just another title, name, of which Jesus has many---Hie is King of Kings and Lord of Lords---obviously He is not an earthly king or Lord as the word is used to describe other high ranking earthly men. Yes---Jesus is the Creator of all things---He is and has many titles, about 200 names. Michael, just happens to be one of them. As far as I'm concerned---You are showing an appalling disrespect to Jesus by rejecting His authority to be whatever He says His is. His is not an angel---archangel is the head of the angels --- as is Captain of the host--0He is ruler over the angels, He created them.
 
Upvote 0

Tim Ray

Active Member
Jun 9, 2020
122
17
76
Lincoln
✟14,881.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Your point three is based on a word study fallacy.
Concerning Zech 3, it is the angel of the Lord speaking.
Daniel
What about the other seven points indicating that "The Angel of The Lord/Michael are both names used in reference too the second member of the Godhead prior to Him lowering Himself and taking on the form of humanity. Of which we/mankind now call Him Jesus. Would it be wise to throw out the baby with the bath water in regard to the other seven points?

The following I copied from post 101 of this thread. It is another individuals insights on Zechariah 3.

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

Zechariah 3:1–10... the antecedent of “he” is the interpreting angel (he is referred to in 1:9, 14, 19; 2:3; 4:1, 3, 5; etc.; in light of 1:9 the interpreting angel was apparently present to explain some of the details of these visions to Zechariah), the antecedent of “me” is Zechariah, the angel of the LORD, and Satan. In this verse Joshua is described as standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan is pictured as standing at the right hand of the angel of the LORD to resist him. With this introduction to the vision we should note that the angel of the LORD is the focal point around which the following context revolves.

"The first half of v. 2 reads like this: “The LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan!’” In light of the participants mentioned in v. 1, we could read this verse in this fashion: “And the LORD, that is the angel of the LORD, said unto Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, Satan.’” Therefore, v. 2 identifies the angel of the LORD as the LORD and indicates that there is a distinction between the angel of the LORD and the LORD. This identification is further substantiated in v. 4. If we follow the context of vv. 2–4 carefully, we should notice that it is the angel of the LORD who forgives sin in v. 4. Since God is the only one who forgives sin, it is readily apparent that the angel of the LORD is God. Consequently, this passage provides solid support for both the deity of the angel of the LORD and his distinctiveness from the LORD.

Who is both deity and yet a distinct person from the LORD? Since no one has ever seen God the Father (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16) and since the Holy Spirit never takes on bodily form, this suggests that the supernatural Being to which this expression refers is the second member of the Trinity (also compare Exod 3:14 with John 8:58). Therefore, the angel of the LORD was a temporary manifestation of the LORD Jesus Christ in a preincarnate form
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
In your opinion, would the information you just posted disqualify SDA's as Biblical Christians??????

Not possible!! For we believe that Jesus is the Creator Son of God and God Himself with the Holy Spirit and the Father. He is not a created angel, Michael is not an angel! Archangel is the leader of the angels, there is only ONE Archangel mentioned in scripture. It is Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jos 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?
Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Jos 5:15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

Captain of the Lords Army, Captain of the Host---Michael the archangel---all the same. Jesus commands His angels.


Sparbud,
This is an interesting passage in Joshua but you're overlooking something. The Man in Linen is NOT called Michael. If God wanted us to believe that the Archangel Michael orchestrated the taking of Jericho, He missed a perfect chance to say so. If God wanted us to bow down to Michael, He missed a perfect chance to say that. We are not being invited to fill in the blanks here, just look at what it says.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you know which post that would be?

My point is that a lot of folks that are not Ellen White make the same claim about someone the Bible calls an "angel" being in reality -- mighty God - In fact God the Son.

My point is not that they are arguing that Michael is another example of it... my point is that Ellen White argued that Michael is yet another example of that same thing already accepted by most Bible scholars in the case of the "Angel of the Lord"

If you check the degree of "harrrumph" that you find on the first few pages of this thread it is almost all directed to the OP idea that someone is claiming that (unlike the Angel of the Lord) - the case being made for Michael is the JW case about a created being - supposedly the preincarnate Christ who is merely a created angel (so then not at all like the case of the "Angel of the LORD").

By contrast the case that Ellen White makes is that they are both examples of the same principle - having God the Son identified under the name or title of an angel in the OT. IT is not a claim to being incarnate as an angel just appearing in that form.

If one were to choose to "accurately" identify the position many SDAs take on that point and then oppose it - they would not immediately begin with JWs also argue that about Michael - because as we all know - no JW doctrine teaches that Michael is God the Son, fully God, fully equal with God the Father.

Your entire thread would have to "start over" if you were to just oppose those points where the SDA claims about Michael and the Angel of The Lord differ with other denominations. Choose something other than an easy-to-debunk straw man to make your case.

Step 1 .. accurately state the opposing view
Step 2.. provide evidence that the view taken by the opposing group "in real life" is not correct

On this thread you struggle with Step 1 by lifting statements out of context and so you never get to Step 2.

In your opinion, would the information you just posted disqualify SDA's as Biblical Christians??????


Major,
First, let me clarify why I find comments by Bob Ryan and Mmksparbud on the identity of Jesus Christ and Michael to be unpersuasive. These posters have repeatedly quoted passages where the Angel of the Lord appears, and sometimes quoted commentary on the Angel of the Lord. The problem is, the "Angel of the Lord" is a very specific and powerful term. The "Angel of the Lord" does not simply mean "an angel" or "an angel from the Lord" or "an angel sent by the Lord." The "Angel of the Lord" is like the Burning Bush, it is an earthly manifestation of God. One of the theories about why the term appears in the OT is that the OT writers didn't want to say "God appeared." That would be either too blunt or inaccurate without explanation. Nevertheless, the "Angel of the Lord" is a manifestation of the Divine.

To confuse the Angel of the Lord with any other angel is like confusing the Secretary of State with a secretary who works in an insurance office. It doesn't add up.

We can't say that the Angel of the Lord is the Archangel Michael. The only way that would make sense is if you already believe that Michael = Jesus Christ = God. If that is what God wants us to believe, I don't see where the scripture says so.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
In your opinion, would the information you just posted disqualify SDA's as Biblical Christians??????


Major,
To continue my reply ...
In general, I am here to point out discrepancies but I try to refrain from judgment when possible. To try to answer your question, I regard the notion that Jesus Christ and the Archangel Michael are one and the same as unproven, at best. It is mainly the result of jumping to conclusions. The SDA claim that Moses resurrected from the dead before the Israelites crossed the Jordan in many ways is far more dangerous. It seems to make Moses the equal or near-equal of Christ, and leaves the New Testament with little advantage over the Old Testament. This fits with the generally Old Testament-oriented views of the SDA. Maybe this is why they find the idea so attractive.

The claim that Moses had a special resurrection seems to be inseparable from the claim that Jesus Christ is Michael. That's why I can't ignore the fact that their claims about the Archangel Michael are suspect, at best.

Deuteronomy Chapter 31 doesn't say that Moses was resurrected ahead of schedule and that is the relevant Chapter. Stories made up later that somehow got mentioned in the NT cannot surmount that hurdle.

I have heard many strange and unfounded ideas from the SDA. Their claim that Satan will die for our sins, after Jesus already did, is their worst idea. This foolish claim strikes at the heart of Christianity and I am most worried about that one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,161
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,505.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I won't defend Mrs. White here, but rather share some Biblical insights you might wish to consider.

Michael the Archangel
According to John 1 and other Bible passages, Jesus is a God who lived with the Father before the world was created. Most Christians have no problem with the idea that a member of deity was made into the likeness of a human form and we call Him, "Jesus." "he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:7-8) Prior to His arrival on Earth, the Bible teaches that Jesus lived in the form or likeness of an angel. To some people, the idea that Jesus is the Michael the Archangel seems utterly impossible.

Consider the irony: It is acceptable to many people that Jesus lived as an unremarkable man when on Earth (Isaiah 53:2) but somehow it is blasphemey that he lived as the archangel before coming to Earth! Somehow, the form of a man is a higher position that the form of an angel. Some people are worried that if Jesus lived in the form of an angel, this would make him a created being, less than deity — but living in the form of man does not incur the same limitations. Worse, some religious groups do not accept that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. The Bible teaches that Jesus is "the Word," He speaks for the Father and 99% of the references in the Old Testament pertain to Jesus precisely because one God is speaking for another God. There is ample proof in the Bible that the person known as “Michael, the Archangel” can be identified as Jesus without detracting anything from His divinity. Let's examine this interesting puzzle point by point.

POINT ONE: When Jesus was born in human flesh through the virgin, Mary, the prophetic utterances of the Holy Spirit gave Him many appropriate names. A few of these are:
Immanuel (God is with us) – Matthew 1:23
Jesus (Savior) – Matthew 1:21
Lamb of God – John 1:29
Christ (Messiah, anointed One or King) – John 1:41

The Bible also reveals that the devil's name was “Lucifer” before he rebelled against God. After being thrown out of Heaven, Lucifer acquired a new name called “Satan.” (Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 12:9) Since we know Jesus existed throughout the ages of eternity long before coming as a babe to Bethlehem, it is logical to assume that He, too, had some Heavenly name before His earthly experience.

POINT TWO: In Biblical times, names were regarded as profoundly important. Nearly every name had a meaning. A few examples will illustrate this point:
El (these letters in a name pertained to God)
Elijah (my God is Jehovah)
Daniel (judgment of God)
Gabriel (man of God)
Michael (one who is like God)

Unless our intention is to be blasphemous, we must recognize that no one is like God – except God Himself. The Bible is clear that it was Lucifer's pride which prompted him to say, “I will be like the Most High.” (Isaiah 14:13-14) Who was he referring to? By now I am sure that the devil understands that no created being – even a dazzling angel like Lucifer – can ever be equal to his Creator.

POINT THREE: The prefix “arch” comes from a Greek word meaning “ruler” or one who rules over, such as in the word “monarch.” We know that our Heavenly Father, as God, rules and reigns over all faithful believers without being a human Himself. By the same token, Jesus can assume the position of ruler over all the angels without being an angel (created being) Himself.

So, by saying that Jesus is Michael, the Archangel, the Bible is simply calling Him the Supreme Commander of the angelic host, just as our United States President is called the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces. This does not mean that the President is a soldier, wearing a uniform. He is above every foot soldier, sailor, airman or marine. He outranks them and rules them, according to the United States Constitution.

To demonstrate this further, consider Genesis 1:28. Here we read that in the beginning God gave man “dominion over” all creatures of the animal kingdom, whether fish, fowl, or animal. “Dominion” means lordship or authority to rule. Thus God placed man in charge of His creation, dominating the animals as a lord rules his subjects. If man can rule the animal kingdom without being an animal himself, no one should insist that Christ cannot be the archangel without being a created angel Himself. Therefore, it should not surprise us that according to the Bible, Jesus Christ has the honor of being “Commander-in-Chief” and has “dominion” over all the angelic forces of Heaven. Serving in this capacity does not detract from His deity or make Him in any way a created being.]


Tim Ray: "So, by saying that Jesus is Michael, the Archangel, the Bible is simply calling Him the Supreme Commander of the angelic host ... "

Let me give you a couple of reasons for believing that Jesus is not the Commander of the Angelic Host, and consequently not Michael, by your reasoning.

53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:53 NIV

Jesus is talking to Peter at the time of His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Notice that Jesus doesn't say, "I can summon twelve legions of angels because I am their commander." Instead, Jesus doesn't claim to command angels directly. Jesus goes to the Father when He needs help from angels.

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
Matthew 4:5-7 NIV

Satan doesn't take Jesus to be directly in command of angelic hosts. Instead, Satan says that God the Father will send angels to protect Jesus from harm. Again, there is no sign that Jesus is formally the commander of angels.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Sparbud,
This is an interesting passage in Joshua but you're overlooking something. The Man in Linen is NOT called Michael. If God wanted us to believe that the Archangel Michael orchestrated the taking of Jericho, He missed a perfect chance to say so. If God wanted us to bow down to Michael, He missed a perfect chance to say that. We are not being invited to fill in the blanks here, just look at what it says.


I didn't say He was! Captain of the Host is also what He goes by--archangel, Captain of the Host, by definition---head of the angels. Again, no angel makes the ground we stand on Holy!! Only God makes anything Holy.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Major,
First, let me clarify why I find comments by Bob Ryan and Mmksparbud on the identity of Jesus Christ and Michael to be unpersuasive. These posters have repeatedly quoted passages where the Angel of the Lord appears, and sometimes quoted commentary on the Angel of the Lord. The problem is, the "Angel of the Lord" is a very specific and powerful term. The "Angel of the Lord" does not simply mean "an angel" or "an angel from the Lord" or "an angel sent by the Lord." The "Angel of the Lord" is like the Burning Bush, it is an earthly manifestation of God. One of the theories about why the term appears in the OT is that the OT writers didn't want to say "God appeared." That would be either too blunt or inaccurate without explanation. Nevertheless, the "Angel of the Lord" is a manifestation of the Divine.

To confuse the Angel of the Lord with any other angel is like confusing the Secretary of State with a secretary who works in an insurance office. It doesn't add up.

We can't say that the Angel of the Lord is the Archangel Michael. The only way that would make sense is if you already believe that Michael = Jesus Christ = God. If that is what God wants us to believe, I don't see where the scripture says so.


All different names for Jesus, which, in itself, is another name for the I AM! Again, no one but God can make anything Holy! No angel, no matter how lofty, is worthy of worship by man!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Andre_b
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Major,
To continue my reply ...
In general, I am here to point out discrepancies but I try to refrain from judgment when possible. To try to answer your question, I regard the notion that Jesus Christ and the Archangel Michael are one and the same as unproven, at best. It is mainly the result of jumping to conclusions. The SDA claim that Moses resurrected from the dead before the Israelites crossed the Jordan in many ways is far more dangerous. It seems to make Moses the equal or near-equal of Christ, and leaves the New Testament with little advantage over the Old Testament. This fits with the generally Old Testament-oriented views of the SDA. Maybe this is why they find the idea so attractive.

The claim that Moses had a special resurrection seems to be inseparable from the claim that Jesus Christ is Michael. That's why I can't ignore the fact that their claims about the Archangel Michael are suspect, at best.

Deuteronomy Chapter 31 doesn't say that Moses was resurrected ahead of schedule and that is the relevant Chapter. Stories made up later that somehow got mentioned in the NT cannot surmount that hurdle.

I have heard many strange and unfounded ideas from the SDA. Their claim that Satan will die for our sins, after Jesus already did, is their worst idea. This foolish claim strikes at the heart of Christianity and I am most worried about that one.

Total misquote!!
Satan does not die for our sins!!! Jesus already did that!! Study the Sanctuary service. The sins that the slain Lamb died for and whose blood cleansed the sins---were placed on the scape goat by the High Priest. Jesus is now our High Priest and He will place those sins that He died for, right on the head of the one that caused them all and Satan -- like the scape goat---will die. Jesus never died twice---ONCE ONLY---the scapegoat was not killed by anyone and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. The scape goat was never a representsation of Jesus,.
 
Upvote 0

pasifika

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2019
2,368
634
45
Waikato
✟160,916.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Major,
First, let me clarify why I find comments by Bob Ryan and Mmksparbud on the identity of Jesus Christ and Michael to be unpersuasive. These posters have repeatedly quoted passages where the Angel of the Lord appears, and sometimes quoted commentary on the Angel of the Lord. The problem is, the "Angel of the Lord" is a very specific and powerful term. The "Angel of the Lord" does not simply mean "an angel" or "an angel from the Lord" or "an angel sent by the Lord." The "Angel of the Lord" is like the Burning Bush, it is an earthly manifestation of God. One of the theories about why the term appears in the OT is that the OT writers didn't want to say "God appeared." That would be either too blunt or inaccurate without explanation. Nevertheless, the "Angel of the Lord" is a manifestation of the Divine.

To confuse the Angel of the Lord with any other angel is like confusing the Secretary of State with a secretary who works in an insurance office. It doesn't add up.

We can't say that the Angel of the Lord is the Archangel Michael. The only way that would make sense is if you already believe that Michael = Jesus Christ = God. If that is what God wants us to believe, I don't see where the scripture says so.
Acts 7:35..This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, " Who made you ruler and judge'? He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God Himself Through the angel who appeared to him in the bush...

God through the angel...Not God or Jesus is the angel
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Major,
First, let me clarify why I find comments by Bob Ryan and Mmksparbud on the identity of Jesus Christ and Michael to be unpersuasive. These posters have repeatedly quoted passages where the Angel of the Lord appears, and sometimes quoted commentary on the Angel of the Lord. The problem is, the "Angel of the Lord" is a very specific and powerful term. The "Angel of the Lord" does not simply mean "an angel" or "an angel from the Lord" or "an angel sent by the Lord." The "Angel of the Lord" is like the Burning Bush, it is an earthly manifestation of God. One of the theories about why the term appears in the OT is that the OT writers didn't want to say "God appeared." That would be either too blunt or inaccurate without explanation. Nevertheless, the "Angel of the Lord" is a manifestation of the Divine.

To confuse the Angel of the Lord with any other angel is like confusing the Secretary of State with a secretary who works in an insurance office. It doesn't add up.

We can't say that the Angel of the Lord is the Archangel Michael. The only way that would make sense is if you already believe that Michael = Jesus Christ = God. If that is what God wants us to believe, I don't see where the scripture says so.

Agreed. The Old Test. has many references to what is called a "Christophany" or a visible manifestation of deity.

What is says is that those who make the claim that Michael is Jesus simply do not do Bible study. They are parroting what someone has told them without them doing the study and work.

Most who make such a claim belong to the SDA's and JW's.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not possible!! For we believe that Jesus is the Creator Son of God and God Himself with the Holy Spirit and the Father. He is not a created angel, Michael is not an angel! Archangel is the leader of the angels, there is only ONE Archangel mentioned in scripture. It is Jesus.

For one to be a Christian, he/she must believe that Jesus is the Christ who is the Son of God thereby making Him God in the flesh.
Without that confession, then anyone and every one are simply "Religious" because they gave denied the Son of God.

John 3:18......
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not possible!! For we believe that Jesus is the Creator Son of God and God Himself with the Holy Spirit and the Father. He is not a created angel, Michael is not an angel! Archangel is the leader of the angels, there is only ONE Archangel mentioned in scripture. It is Jesus.

The Scripture makes a distinction between Michael and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Allow me to help your understanding of the Scriptures my friend. Biblically speaking, An archangel - "means that one who is a head over angels (arch), as an angel." Jude calls Michael an angel who cannot rebuke a greater angel even a cherubim who is fallen, so he refers to the Lord, therefore He is not and CAN NOT BE the Lord Jesus.

Jude 1:9......

"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The LORD rebuke thee."

Something from the Bible which your SDA teachers did not tell you.

Dan. 10:13: …….
“But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes.”

LOOK at the Scripture yourself and read it for yourself.
He is one of many princes, thus he is in the angelic category.

It tells us he is angel, therefore he cannot be Jesus; neither is His name applied to Jesus. Michael is an angel just as Gabriel is an angel. There is no justification to say Michael is applied to Jesus or Jesus to Michael.

2 Peter 3:3
" knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, as in most other cases---we believe completely differently. You could then provide a reason why this so called angel, and the Captain of the Host and the Lords angel all received worship from man.
And please remember the forum rules and try not to get this thread shut down. We are Christian and as such, the forum rules should be followed, this time. Once again , you are saying things that are not true.
I do not care what the Jehovah Witness's believe. We totally believe that Jesus is the One and Only Son of God---and God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Michael is just another title, name, of which Jesus has many---Hie is King of Kings and Lord of Lords---obviously He is not an earthly king or Lord as the word is used to describe other high ranking earthly men. Yes---Jesus is the Creator of all things---He is and has many titles, about 200 names. Michael, just happens to be one of them. As far as I'm concerned---You are showing an appalling disrespect to Jesus by rejecting His authority to be whatever He says His is. His is not an angel---archangel is the head of the angels --- as is Captain of the host--0He is ruler over the angels, He created them.

Michael is an angel just as Gabriel is an angel. There is no justification to say Michael is applied to Jesus or Jesus to Michael.

Rev. 12:7...….
“And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought”

The Greek is -autos- which has the meaning of the same, in other words he is in the same group as the others mentioned: angels, both God’s and Satan’s.

Take to to read 1Thess. 4:16:.....
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first".

It is an angel that announces his coming and blows the trumpet, not Jesus, the Greek speaks of an order given, a procession.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The Scripture makes a distinction between Michael and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Allow me to help your understanding of the Scriptures my friend. Biblically speaking, An archangel - "means that one who is a head over angels (arch), as an angel." Jude calls Michael an angel who cannot rebuke a greater angel even a cherubim who is fallen, so he refers to the Lord, therefore He is not and CAN NOT BE the Lord Jesus.

Jude 1:9......

"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The LORD rebuke thee."

Something from the Bible which your SDA teachers did not tell you.

Dan. 10:13: …….
“But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes.”

LOOK at the Scripture yourself and read it for yourself.
He is one of many princes, thus he is in the angelic category.

It tells us he is angel, therefore he cannot be Jesus; neither is His name applied to Jesus. Michael is an angel just as Gabriel is an angel. There is no justification to say Michael is applied to Jesus or Jesus to Michael.

2 Peter 3:3
" knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,"


Again---no angel, no matter how lofty they are placed in heaven, can not be worshipped by man. Each time that a man has shown worship to any mere angel, the angel has reprimanded them and said to stand up and not do it. Except in the cases that have been mentioned. Those beings have not only accepted the worship, but said that the ground that the man was standing on was Holy ground. No angel can make anything Holy---God alone does that. Michael is not an angel---archangel is head of angels, a title, as is Captain of the Host---head of the angelic host---Jesus---the I Am (for that name is not in the OT except for Joshua --Jesus is Greek for Joshua)As for Daniel---you stopped reading way too soon.

Dan 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

We have no Prince save Jesus.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.