Status
Not open for further replies.

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
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.

Right! He comes as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, with the voice of the archangel---doesn't say with a voice LIKE/OR AS the voice of the archangel, but with THE voice of the archangel---For it is that voice that brought the worlds into existence!
Yes! Michael and His angels! They are His for He created them and they have accepted Him as their Creator God and follow His commands. Those that rejected Him are no longer His---they belong now to Satan and will end up as he does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andre_b
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
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

"Angel" means MESSENGER and its meaning is determined by the CONTEXT.

Ex. 3:2......
There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

When Moses looked at the bush and a voice said.....

Ex. 3:6.......
"Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Ex. 3:14......
God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I am has sent me to you.'"
 
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
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.

Where may I ask you did you see that I SAID we are worship angels????

Where did I say that Michael was Jesus????

Where did I say that Michael was NOT an angel????

Are YOU reading what I said carefully???

I have said and will repeat for YOU/…..
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of God and the 2nd Person of the Trinity. He is GOD IN THE FLESH.

Man is never ever to worship angels and that action is strictly and clearly given to us all through the Scriptures.

Michael IS AN ANGEL but that is all he is.
Throughout scripture Michael is distinguished from Jesus, and there is no need for confusion on this matter.

The Bible says this in Heb.1:5:.....
"For to which of the angels did he ever say "you are my Son today I have begotten you?"

The answer is none of them! Michael is an angel, one of many chief ones. Jesus is never called Michael, this name is never applied to him only the angel it belongs to.

Joshua 5:1-5...…..
"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? 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? 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."

Jesus is the Captain of the host of heaven!
 
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
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.

I would disagree only on the play of "words".
Jesus IMHO is The KING and Creator of ALL things and is God in the flesh.

As such, ALL angels are beneath Him.

Daniel 10:21 validates that comment. As the JEWS of ISRAEL are Daniels people Michael is then The patron, or guardian of your people, and of their interests. The idea intended to be conveyed here undoubtedly is, that Michael was a guardian angel for the Jewish people; that he had special charge of their affairs; that his interposition might be depended on in the time of trouble and danger, and that, under him, their interests would be safe. No one can prove that this is not so; and as on earth some of the most important favors that we enjoy are conferred by the instrumentality of others; as we are often defended when in danger by them; as we are counseled and directed by them; as God raises up for the orphan, and the widow, and the insane, and the sorrowful, and the feeble, those of wealth, and power, and learning, who can better guard their interests than they could themselves, and as these relations are often sustained, and these favors conferred by those who are invisible to the recipients, so it gives, in a higher sense, a new beauty to the arrangements of the universe to suppose that this benevolent office is often undertaken and discharged by angelic beings.
Daniel 10:21 -
 
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
"Angel" means MESSENGER and its meaning is determined by the CONTEXT.

Ex. 3:2......
There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

When Moses looked at the bush and a voice said.....

Ex. 3:6.......
"Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Ex. 3:14......
God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I am has sent me to you.'"
"Angel" means MESSENGER and its meaning is determined by the CONTEXT.

Ex. 3:2......
There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

When Moses looked at the bush and a voice said.....

Ex. 3:6.......
"Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Ex. 3:14......
God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I am has sent me to you.'"


No angel is the I am. Archangel is chief of Messengers---Jesus came as the Chief of Messengers from God---the I Am became human to show us His Father and die for our sins. Definitely the greatest of Messengers!
 
  • Like
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
Where may I ask you did you see that I SAID we are worship angels????

Where did I say that Michael was Jesus????

Where did I say that Michael was NOT an angel????

Are YOU reading what I said carefully???

I have said and will repeat for YOU/…..
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of God and the 2nd Person of the Trinity. He is GOD IN THE FLESH.

Man is never ever to worship angels and that action is strictly and clearly given to us all through the Scriptures.

Michael IS AN ANGEL but that is all he is.
Throughout scripture Michael is distinguished from Jesus, and there is no need for confusion on this matter.

The Bible says this in Heb.1:5:.....
"For to which of the angels did he ever say "you are my Son today I have begotten you?"

The answer is none of them! Michael is an angel, one of many chief ones. Jesus is never called Michael, this name is never applied to him only the angel it belongs to.

Joshua 5:1-5...…..
"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? 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? 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."

Jesus is the Captain of the host of heaven!

Yes!!! Captain of the Host---Archangel---meaning is the same---He is the Head of His creation!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andre_b
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
No angel is the I am. Archangel is chief of Messengers---Jesus came as the Chief of Messengers from God---the I Am became human to show us His Father and die for our sins. Definitely the greatest of Messengers!

How is that any different than what I have ssaid to you my dear sister?
 
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
I would disagree only on the play of "words".
Jesus IMHO is The KING and Creator of ALL things and is God in the flesh.

As such, ALL angels are beneath Him.

Daniel 10:21 validates that comment. As the JEWS of ISRAEL are Daniels people Michael is then The patron, or guardian of your people, and of their interests. The idea intended to be conveyed here undoubtedly is, that Michael was a guardian angel for the Jewish people; that he had special charge of their affairs; that his interposition might be depended on in the time of trouble and danger, and that, under him, their interests would be safe. No one can prove that this is not so; and as on earth some of the most important favors that we enjoy are conferred by the instrumentality of others; as we are often defended when in danger by them; as we are counseled and directed by them; as God raises up for the orphan, and the widow, and the insane, and the sorrowful, and the feeble, those of wealth, and power, and learning, who can better guard their interests than they could themselves, and as these relations are often sustained, and these favors conferred by those who are invisible to the recipients, so it gives, in a higher sense, a new beauty to the arrangements of the universe to suppose that this benevolent office is often undertaken and discharged by angelic beings.
Daniel 10:21 -


There is no Prince for men other than Jesus!! Michael was head of angels for Jesus created all of them and is their King, their leader, their Captain! And Yes! Jesus, the I AM, was directing the Jews throughout history! And He would often send angels, such as Gabriel, as additional messengers---but it was always Jesus that led in the cloud and in the fire!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andre_b
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
Yes!!! Captain of the Host---Archangel---meaning is the same---He is the Head of His creation!

NO. You are making something different than what I said. YOu are trying to apply your SDA theology to what I stated.

Jesus IS GOD! Jesus is the Creator. Everything is under His feet.

Captain of the Host of Heaven DOES NOT MEAN Archangel.

The captain of the Lord’s host uses the same language that Yahweh uses in Exodus 3:5 ------
“Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy” .

Josh. 5:15.......
"he commander of the LORD's army replied, "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so."

The captain of the Lord's host or captain of the host of the Lord is none other than the pre-incarnate Christ. The pre-incarnate Christ also appears in the old testament as one called the "Angel of the Lord." In either case inwhich he is referred, he has the divine authority to receive worship: "...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?

Now then....if this "MAN" was Michael the angael, WHY WOULD HE ALLOW JOSHUA TO WORSHIP HIM??????
 
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
There is no Prince for men other than Jesus!! Michael was head of angels for Jesus created all of them and is their King, their leader, their Captain! And Yes! Jesus, the I AM, was directing the Jews throughout history! And He would often send angels, such as Gabriel, as additional messengers---but it was always Jesus that led in the cloud and in the fire!

That is because Jesus appeared to men in the past before His incarnation. That is called a "CHRISTOFONY". God in Christ appeared to men before He was INcarnated.
 
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
NO. You are making something different than what I said. YOu are trying to apply your SDA theology to what I stated.

Jesus IS GOD! Jesus is the Creator. Everything is under His feet.

Captain of the Host of Heaven DOES NOT MEAN Archangel.

The captain of the Lord’s host uses the same language that Yahweh uses in Exodus 3:5 ------
“Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy” .

Josh. 5:15.......
"he commander of the LORD's army replied, "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so."

The captain of the Lord's host or captain of the host of the Lord is none other than the pre-incarnate Christ. The pre-incarnate Christ also appears in the old testament as one called the "Angel of the Lord." In either case inwhich he is referred, he has the divine authority to receive worship: "...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?

Now then....if this "MAN" was Michael the angael, WHY WOULD HE ALLOW JOSHUA TO WORSHIP HIM??????

That is what I said!!! In the other thread you refused to even admit that Captain of the host was Jesus, nior the angel of the Lord, now you do?? I have always said, archangel and Captain of the Host, angel of the Lord is the same title, the same authority, Jesus as Creator and head of His creation!
 
  • 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
That is because Jesus appeared to men in the past before His incarnation. That is called a "CHRISTOFONY". God in Christ appeared to men before He was INcarnated.


Yes!! As Michael, Angel of the Lord, Captain of the Host!!
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,592
Georgia
✟909,727.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I ain't defending it but I hear he's the real deal. My friend knows him and swears he prophecied covid19 Jesus second coming as Michael the archangel or Victor Bauhng. Never prejudge unless you have first hand knowledge

"Though we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a different gospel - let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-9
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,592
Georgia
✟909,727.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Just as most Bible scholars assert that the "Angel of the Lord" is the pre-incarnate Christ.
===================================== not BobRyan
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
by Bob McCabe
http://dbts.edu/blog/author/rmccabe/

"The issue for us concerns whether this term can refer to the infinite supernatural Being, God. In order to prove that this term can refer to God, we will need to examine when it is used in connection with the phrase “of the LORD.” While this expression is used thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, we will examine two of these.
....
(Remainder of this post in the next quote
...<see next quote>
======================================

Even so - the SDA denomination has no doctrinal statements on who Michael is - we just have the doctrinal statements in our "28 Fundamental Beliefs" regarding the Trinity -- the Godhead and Christ as the second person of the Godhead.

The post you replied to included this text from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe
Example 1

Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

"The first passage is found in Exodus 3:1–14. While tending the flock of his father-in-law at Horeb, Moses saw that a burning bush was not being consumed by the fire. As he approached the bush, v. 2 clearly states that the angel of the LORD appeared to him in the flames of the bush. It is stated in v. 4 that the LORD spoke to him from within the bush. In v. 6 the Being in the bush further identifies that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the conversation continues between these two, the Being in the bush announces His name, “I AM WHO I AM” (v. 14). Thus, this passage indicates that the angel of the LORD mentioned in v. 2 is clearly identified by Himself and accepted by Moses as the infinite God.

Example 2

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
"
=========================end quote

Your response above did not deal with the texts that point to the fact.

As for the scholarship agreeing with Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

Some examples:

Friday at 10:53 PM #19

...


Adam Clarke Commentary

Exodus 3 Verse 2

The angel of the Lord - Not a created angel certainly; for he is called יהוה Jehovah, Exodus 3:4, etc., and has the most expressive attributes of the Godhead applied to him, Exodus 3:14, etc. Yet he is an angel, מלאך malach, a messenger, in whom was the name of God, Exodus 23:21; and in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians 2:9; and who, in all these primitive times, was the Messenger of the covenant, Malachi 3:1. And who was this but Jesus, the Leader, Redeemer, and Savior of mankind? See Clarke's note on Genesis 16:7.

=================


James Burton Coffman
Ex 3 Verse 2-3

"And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt."

"The angel of Jehovah ..." As the context proves, "The Angel of Jehovah is not a created angel but Jehovah himself in his act of self-revelation."[10] This is merely another name for God, of which there are many in the Bible. Although this verse does not indicate it, there is reason to believe that the Angel of Jehovah should be identified with our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead; he is also called the Angel of the Covenant.[11]


=================================
Jamieson Fausset Brown

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Verse 2-3


the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire — It is common in Scripture to represent the elements and operations of nature, as winds, fires, earthquakes, pestilence, everything enlisted in executing the divine will, as the “angels” or messengers of God. But in such cases God Himself is considered as really, though invisibly, present. Here the preternatural fire may be primarily meant by the expression “angel of the Lord”; but it is clear that under this symbol, the Divine Being was present, whose name is given (Exodus 3:4, Exodus 3:6), and elsewhere called the angel of the covenant, Jehovah-Jesus.


===================================
I think we can all agree that none of those Bible scholars were following Ellen White to make their statements or take their positions on this subject. So we cannot blame her for positions they take.

Nor can we "blame me" for positions those scholars take.
Albert Barnes Commentary

=========================================

So then two opinions --

here is one -


Albert Barnes Commentary

Exodus 3
Ex 3:1-2 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

vs 2
What Moses saw was the flame of fire in the bush; what he recognized therein was an intimation of the presence of God, who maketh a flame of fire His angel. Compare Psalm 104:4. The words which Moses heard were those of God Himself, as all ancient and most modern divines have held, manifested in the Person of the Son


=========== and here is another one


I ran out of time quoting so many of them that do not share your view after I got to

Albert Barnes
James Burton Coffman
Adam Clarke Commentary
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Bob McCabe

R.C.Sproul
The Angel of the LORD
Verse 7 tells us “the angel of the Lord” found Hagar at the spring. This angel is no mere messenger of God, even though royal messengers in those days were treated with the same respect as the sender. When the angel of the Lord appears elsewhere in Scripture, people fall down in worship (see Judg. 6:22–24). After seeing the angel, Hagar addresses him as God (Gen. 16:13). This angel appeared mainly during the period recounted in Genesis and Judges, and, while the New Testament does not explicitly identify the angel with the Son of God, many in church history have identified this messenger as the pre-incarnate Christ.


"The point" is that these folks are not saying this "because Ellen White told them to say it" -- as I am sure we all agree.

And I think Albert Barnes' statement above is correct as even your own scenarios include one where the Angel of the Lord is in fact God - speaking to Moses.
==============================================
And your incorrect accusation in the OP is not only a false accusation - but the "Angel of the Lord" topic in general is one where even you can see you do not agree with well known Bible scholarship not at all connected to your topic "Ellen White".

When I point out that
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - author Bob McCabe

Albert Barnes
James Burton Coffman
Adam Clarke Commentary
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Bob McCabe
-- and R.C.Sproul

All agree that "the Angel of the Lord" instances they reference in the OT are in fact God the Son and that they are not saying this because of "Ellen White"

You respond that you have your reasons for not agreeing with them on the subject of the identity of "the Angel of the Lord"




1. Interesting that you are not dealing with texts that McCabe was pointing out to make the case.
2. your own discussion of it includes explanation "in some ways similar" to all the scholars I point to -

(2) He may be a momentary descent of God into visibility;

It is interesting that your post includes the idea that when the Bible speaks of "the Angel of the Lord" in some texts - it may well be "God" that is the being speaking (for various reasons you give in your own post).



Bob,

In several posts, you apparently assume the "the Angel of the Lord" is Michael the Archangel and from there you conclude that Michael is Jesus Christ.

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.

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."

1. Michael is a very specific term in the bible as well - it applies to only one being in all the universe.. and like the term "Angel of the Lord" is a reference to almighty God - the Son.

In this respect they are the same idea.

Not "an Angel of the Lord" and not "A Michael" but rather a very specific being.

2. The point was not to get you to call God the Son "Michael" rather it was to show that our difference is that you accept "Angel of the Lord" as God the Son (as did Ellen White) - but she also accepted that "Michael" is yet another name for that same concept for God the Son as the "Angel of the Lord" - and you do not. Which is fine of course... differences do exist.

The "Angel of the Lord" is like the Burning Bush, it is an earthly manifestation of God.

The burning bush refers to an object on earth that appears to be on fire -- but nothing about either Michael or "the Angel of the Lord" limits it to Earth. Neither is a claim to be from Earth or born on Earth or Created on Earth.

And so... the point remains.

To confuse the Angel of the Lord with any other angel

There is no claim to "other angel" in this context. It would be like saying "to confuse God the Son, with the Son of Man" as if Jesus is two people... or "just another man".. it is not logical.

And so... the point remains.

But having said that - I am not arguing for you not having the free will to choose whatever you wish.
 
Last edited:
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
That is what I said!!! In the other thread you refused to even admit that Captain of the host was Jesus, nior the angel of the Lord, now you do?? I have always said, archangel and Captain of the Host, angel of the Lord is the same title, the same authority, Jesus as Creator and head of His creation!

It seems to me that YOU were the one saying that Michael was the archangel and as such was the captain of the host of heaven.

You were trying to say that there are ONE and both are Michael/Jesus.

That is not Biblical and that is not what I said.

Jesus is Jesus and Michael is Michael. Jesus Christ created ALL the angles.
 
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 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.



1. Michael is a very specific term in the bible as well - it applies to only one being in all the universe.. and like the term "Angel of the Lord" is a reference to almighty God - the Son.

In this respect they are the same idea.

Not "an Angel of the Lord" and not "A Michael" but rather a very specific being.

2. The point was not to get you to call God the Son "Michael" rather it was to show that our difference is that you accept "Angel of the Lord" as God the Son (as did Ellen White) - but she also accepted that "Michael" is yet another name for that same concept for God the Son as the "Angel of the Lord" - and you do not. Which is fine of course... differences do exist.



The burning bush refers to an object on earth that appears to be on fire -- but nothing about either Michael or "the Angel of the Lord" limits it to Earth. Neither is a claim to be from Earth or born on Earth or Created on Earth.

And so... the point remains.



There is no claim to "other angel" in this context. It would be like saying "to confuse God the Son, with the Son of Man" as if Jesus is two people... or "just another man".. it is not logical.

And so... the point remains.

But having said that - I am not arguing for you not having the free will to choose whatever you wish.

And YOu are making the same mistake as your lady friend. Jesus is NOT Michael and Michael is not Jesus.

Jesus is the Creator, God in the fleash, 100% man and 100% God. In the Creation, Jesus created ALL things including ALL the angels and Michael.

Michael IS NOT JESUS and when the "Angel of the Lord" is used it is in reference to the PRE-INCARNANT Christ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pasifika
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
Yes!! As Michael, Angel of the Lord, Captain of the Host!!

NOPE! I knew that was what you were trying to say. WRONG!!!!

As GOD, "The angle of the Lord" who is Jesus Christ and HE is the Captain of ALL things.

Again.....why not answer the question posed to you.

IF the Archangel Michael was the "Angel of the Lord, who visited Joshua, WHY DID HE ALLOW JOSUHA TO BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP HIM.

Do you not realize that that action breaks the very 1st Commandment????
 
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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,306
10,592
Georgia
✟909,727.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And YOu are making the same mistake as your lady friend. Jesus is NOT Michael and Michael is not Jesus.

As all the scholars I listed in my post agree - Jesus is the "Angel of the Lord" and the "Angel of the Lord" is Jesus - the Creator, God.. and of course in our view He is also known as Michael - same person "Creator God , who came in the flesh, 100% man and 100% God .. Jesus Created ALL things including ALL angels... even though He also goes by "Angel of the LORD" and the archangel Michael.

Jesus is the Creator, God in the fleash, 100% man and 100% God. In the Creation, Jesus created ALL things including ALL the angels

So then agreement on that part of what you are saying

and Michael.
Michael IS NOT JESUS and when the "Angel of the Lord" is used it is in reference to the PRE-INCARNANT Christ.

And since the war in heaven in Rev 12 was fought before Satan tempted Eve in Eden .. that would all be the "pre-incarnate Christ" --
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Andre_b
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.