Do Baptists still believe that Michael Archangel, is "Jesus", like others?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
34,437
3,872
On the bus to Heaven
✟60,078.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Also, while there are analogies that can be drawn of a pre-incarnate Jesus and angels, Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. Michael did not dare to pronounce judgment on satan and instead asked God to pass the judgment. Jesus is God, the second Godhead, and He certainly can pass judgment on satan (see Jude).

Now I wait for the SDA twist on Jude.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is exegetically/theologically incorrect with their [Charles Spurgeon & John Gill's] exegesis, would you be able to demonstrate where they are incorrect [please cite the portions from their works, with response if you will please]?

I do think there is some evidence that could be presented to show that that Michael is another name for Jesus within the apocalyptic context of conflict with Satan. On the other hand by far the biggest problem text for this, and the one that convinces me in the other direction is Daniel 10:13:

Dan 10:13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,

"one of the chief princes" does not seem to do justice to who Jesus is.
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
47
Pa
✟6,506.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Ok, so you do not adhere to Michael being Jesus [as Baptist Charles Spurgeon and John Gill] because it is a "Calvinist" [or "Calvinist" associated] doctrine? Did I understand your reply correctly? If not, would you please explain a little more?

Additionally, is Michael being Jesus part of any of the "Calvinist" 5 points of the T.U.L.I.P.?

Also, are you stating that Charles Spurgeon and John Gill were not "conservative" Baptists? Please clarify, thank you.

Lets be clear, these men are not the great men of the Baptist faith, Jesus is, we also draw from Martian Luther and many others. These men were controversial in their day. I don't focus on men to much. Calvinist in my school and church is seen as false doctrine. Baptist are not majority Calvinist some are, a small group, but not the masses. You do not understand the branches of Baptist.

Today the biggest groups I know of in baptist faith is the conservative and the southern Baptist.

None of what you are asking is important, or at least the way you are asking it. You say these men said this, so who are these men. Why not look at what God says. Stick to the Bible.

If you would like to discuss Jesus being the arch angels Biblical i would be happy to, but don't ask me about me I care little for or know about, what I am saying is they are not my focus Jesus is.

What do you know of Michael? Bible verses please. I am open to your idea If the Word of God says it, but I won't go by men or other text but The Bible alone.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Also, while there are analogies that can be drawn of a pre-incarnate Jesus and angels, Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. Michael did not dare to pronounce judgment on satan and instead asked God to pass the judgment. Jesus is God, the second Godhead, and He certainly can pass judgment on satan (see Jude).

Now I wait for the SDA twist on Jude.

That one may not be as compelling as it may seem due to a parallel passage in Zechariah:

Zec 3:2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"


 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jehovah's Witness theology has skewed from the early Advent movement of the mid 1800's, and are in the error of Arius.]

So are you going to here assert that the Adventists of the mid 1800's were all purely Trinitarian in their theology and thought Jesus was eternal?
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
34,437
3,872
On the bus to Heaven
✟60,078.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That one may not be as compelling as it may seem due to a parallel passage in Zechariah:

Zec 3:2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"



I don't see Michael the Archangel being mentioned in the verse from Zechariah. ;)

ETA: I think the verse in Jude helps explains the verse in Zachariah since there is a definite separation between Michael and the Lord in Jude.
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
47
Pa
✟6,506.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I do think there is some evidence that could be presented to show that that Michael is another name for Jesus within the apocalyptic context of conflict with Satan. On the other hand by far the biggest problem text for this, and the one that convinces me in the other direction is Daniel 10:13:

Dan 10:13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,

"one of the chief princes" does not seem to do justice to who Jesus is.

can i ask you about the text you quoted. I have heard that it was Gabriel who was delayed, that he had a message for Daniel and Michael had to come so Gabriel could get threw to Daniel. Is this correct could you explain? thanks.:)
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What do you know of Michael? Bible verses please. I am open to your idea If the Word of God says it, but I won't go by men or other text but The Bible alone.


Here is the basic case:


DA 10:4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

DA 10:7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.

DA 10:10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.

DA 10:12 Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

DA 10:15 While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face toward the ground and was speechless. 16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. 17 How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe."

DA 10:18 Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. 19 "Do not be afraid, O man highly esteemed," he said. "Peace! Be strong now; be strong."
When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, "Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength."

DA 10:20 So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)


Here we see that Gabriel describes what some have seen to be a spiritual battle between angelic and demonic powers (although others see it as an angelic power wrestling with the human prince of Persia to bring about a change of mind).

In any case, a few points here jump out. At the beginning of the passage Daniel sees a figure that has striking parallels to the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1. Since Gabriel says that Michael had helped him some see this appearance as an appearance of Michael, and therefore link it with the vision in Revelation 1.

Daniel: Dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

Revelation: And in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.


On the other hand 10:13 describes Michael as ONE of the chief princes which seems to go against the notion that it is Christ.




DA 12:1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

There are some strong parallels between this passage and John 5 in which Jesus says He will speak and the dead who are in their graves will rise to everlasting life or shame and everlasting contempt. Here Michael is called the great prince rather than just one of the chief princes.

Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
Joh 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.


In Jude we see Michael again mentioned:

JUDE 1:8 In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

Here Michael is seen disputing with Satan. Now some have pointed out that he says "the Lord rebuke you." In other words, why would he say that if he were Jesus? However, this is actually quoting from Zechariah originally

ZEC 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"

So here we see the LORD saying "the Lord rebuke you" So it doesn't exactly rule it out, and may even strengthen the association. Again in this context, as with the others, we see Michael involved in a spiritual struggle.

The reference to Moses body is believed to be a quote from a lost portion of an extra-biblical book, the assumption of Moses.

Moses and Elijah were both present at the transfiguration suggesting that Moses' body was resurrected, as there is no reference to Moses being out of body and Elijah was taken directly to heaven without dying.



Again we see Michael in Rev. 12:7

REV 12:7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.


Here we see Michael as in charge of the angels, clearly again in conflict.

Thessalonians does not mention Michael, but does speak of the voice of an archangel.

1 Thess. 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Here we see that it says that the Lord will come down with a loud command and the voice of the archangel.

Some see the voice as that of Jesus, also spoken of in John 5 as before, and some see it as an angel accompanying Him.

As to the term for archangel, it seems it is up to those who take the position that it does not indicate that Jesus is an angel but merely over the angels to demonstrate that the prefix αρχ- is used in that way. In the example of ἀρχιερεύς, chief priest, the person was still a priest, though over the others. If the same model were followed Michael would still be an angel, though over the others. Is there linguistic evidence of the opposite? One who is over but does not partake in that nature? I don't know. I tend to think that the prefix is to distinguish superiority WITHIN a class more than simply to indicate status above a class. It would be much like our English usage "arch-enemy" etc. An arch-enemy is one's chief enemy. He is still an enemy.

Overall I think there is some evidence that could point to the connection, but the idea that Jesus is one of the chief priests does not fit, nor has it been demonstrated than an ἀρχαγγέλοs is not an angel. So with that in mind I would say it is not the case.
 
Upvote 0

USCGrad90

Seeker
Mar 19, 2013
518
21
Greenwood, South Carolina, USA
✟15,924.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Indeed. I am attempting to narrow down where historically the Baptists turned from the belief even as held by Charles Spurgeon and John Gill, etc.
(see "The New Park Street Pulpit, The Resurrection of the Dead, A Sermon, No. 66," Delivered on February 17, 1856 at New Park Street Chapel, Southwark).
Obviously, in this sermon Charles Spurgeon considers Michael the Archangel to be an angel, and not the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't see the point in responding to more questions after your initial one is answered. Your questions are pointed to dispute what you are being told and promote a SDA viewpoint.

If you truly want clarifying information on why the belief is not accepted, you should try contacting a theological seminary or qualified minister who can give you a more historical and authoritative answer.
Southern Baptist Convention > Southern Baptist Theological Seminaries
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't see Michael the Archangel being mentioned in the verse from Zechariah. ;)

ETA: I think the verse in Jude helps explains the verse in Zachariah since there is a definite separation between Michael and the Lord in Jude.

I agree, I don't see it saying Michael there either. But that is just the point. If it just said Michael there as well then you wouldn't have any other new information. We would just know that Michael says the LORD rebuke you in two places.

But what it says in Zachariah is that the LORD says it, also described in the verse before to be "the Angel of the LORD". This is at times associated with Christ.

Now the question you asked was whether Christ would say "the LORD rebuke you". This text in Zachariah is seen by some as an answer to that.

So in a sense this does strengthen the connection, and shows that even the Angel of the LORD could say "the LORD rebuke you".
 
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

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have heard that it was Gabriel who was delayed, that he had a message for Daniel and Michael had to come so Gabriel could get threw to Daniel. Is this correct could you explain? thanks.:)

That is my general take on it, that Gabriel needed assistance from Michael. The prince of Persia here in that case is likely to be an evil spiritual power that was resisting Gabriel.

The other view is that it is the literal king of Persia who had to be convinced, but it seems to me more that it is a spiritual battle that is being described between opposing powers.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Also, while there are analogies that can be drawn of a pre-incarnate Jesus and angels, Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. Michael did not dare to pronounce judgment on satan and instead asked God to pass the judgment. Jesus is God, the second Godhead, and He certainly can pass judgment on satan (see Jude).

Now I wait for the SDA twist on Jude.


On a related note though, Jude and I Peter share a lot of parallel material. And in Peter he includes a similar argument:


2Pe 2:10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,
2Pe 2:11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.



If we take this to be a parallel account then it would lump Michael in with various angels.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟877,352.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Overall I would say the argument is not persuasive that Michael is Jesus, as Jesus is not just "one" of the chief princes.

Nor is it demonstrated that archangel removes the connotation of angelic being and only means "over the angels. "

Then there is also the question of how it would add anything to prophecy to have a code name for Jesus. I guess that is more of a theoretical question, but why would it be needed?

Jesus is already the Son of Man in Daniel, even in an apocalyptic setting, so why introduce multiple figures who would represent the same figure? It would just confuse things.
 
Upvote 0

Shiny Gospel Shoes

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2013
633
9
✟880.00
Faith
SDA
You are yet to prove that historical Baptists agreed with ...
Are you then saying that Charles Spurgeon and John Gill were not historic Baptists which stated that Jesus is Michael?

I am not quite sure what you are asking/saying then, if not, since as I understand it, both Charles Spurgeon [AD 19 June 1834 – AD 31 January 1892; "is known as the "Prince of Preachers". He was a strong figure in the Reformed Baptist tradition, defending the Church in agreement with the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith understanding, and opposing the liberal and pragmatic theological tendencies in the Church of his day." [Link]] and John Gill [AD 23 November 1697 – AD 14 October 1771] were Historic Baptists, which indeed, made such statements, as cited in the OP, which is in total harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist understanding, based upon the Scriptures.

Please clarify. Thank you.
 
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

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
47
Pa
✟6,506.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here is the basic case:


DA 10:4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

DA 10:7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.

DA 10:10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.

DA 10:12 Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

DA 10:15 While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face toward the ground and was speechless. 16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. 17 How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe."

DA 10:18 Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. 19 "Do not be afraid, O man highly esteemed," he said. "Peace! Be strong now; be strong."
When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, "Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength."

DA 10:20 So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)


Here we see that Gabriel describes what some have seen to be a spiritual battle between angelic and demonic powers (although others see it as an angelic power wrestling with the human prince of Persia to bring about a change of mind).

In any case, a few points here jump out. At the beginning of the passage Daniel sees a figure that has striking parallels to the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1. Since Gabriel says that Michael had helped him some see this appearance as an appearance of Michael, and therefore link it with the vision in Revelation 1.

Daniel: Dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

Revelation: And in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.


On the other hand 10:13 describes Michael as ONE of the chief princes which seems to go against the notion that it is Christ.




DA 12:1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

There are some strong parallels between this passage and John 5 in which Jesus says He will speak and the dead who are in their graves will rise to everlasting life or shame and everlasting contempt. Here Michael is called the great prince rather than just one of the chief princes.

Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
Joh 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.


In Jude we see Michael again mentioned:

JUDE 1:8 In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

Here Michael is seen disputing with Satan. Now some have pointed out that he says "the Lord rebuke you." In other words, why would he say that if he were Jesus? However, this is actually quoting from Zechariah originally

ZEC 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"

So here we see the LORD saying "the Lord rebuke you" So it doesn't exactly rule it out, and may even strengthen the association. Again in this context, as with the others, we see Michael involved in a spiritual struggle.

The reference to Moses body is believed to be a quote from a lost portion of an extra-biblical book, the assumption of Moses.

Moses and Elijah were both present at the transfiguration suggesting that Moses' body was resurrected, as there is no reference to Moses being out of body and Elijah was taken directly to heaven without dying.



Again we see Michael in Rev. 12:7

REV 12:7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.


Here we see Michael as in charge of the angels, clearly again in conflict.

Thessalonians does not mention Michael, but does speak of the voice of an archangel.

1 Thess. 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Here we see that it says that the Lord will come down with a loud command and the voice of the archangel.

Some see the voice as that of Jesus, also spoken of in John 5 as before, and some see it as an angel accompanying Him.

As to the term for archangel, it seems it is up to those who take the position that it does not indicate that Jesus is an angel but merely over the angels to demonstrate that the prefix αρχ- is used in that way. In the example of ἀρχιερεύς, chief priest, the person was still a priest, though over the others. If the same model were followed Michael would still be an angel, though over the others. Is there linguistic evidence of the opposite? One who is over but does not partake in that nature? I don't know. I tend to think that the prefix is to distinguish superiority WITHIN a class more than simply to indicate status above a class. It would be much like our English usage "arch-enemy" etc. An arch-enemy is one's chief enemy. He is still an enemy.

Overall I think there is some evidence that could point to the connection, but the idea that Jesus is one of the chief priests does not fit, nor has it been demonstrated than an ἀρχαγγέλοs is not an angel. So with that in mind I would say it is not the case.

thank you
 
Upvote 0

Bluelion

Peace and Love
Oct 6, 2013
4,341
313
47
Pa
✟6,506.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
i must bow out, seems I am battling spirits of my own tonight.

to the op I like how you quoted what i said about them not being great men of baptist faith but left out what I said in the same sentence that Jesus is. That is just shady, Children of God should not manipulate peoples words. :)
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Indeed. I am attempting to narrow down where historically the Baptists turned from the belief even as held by Charles Spurgeon and John Gill, etc.

Something that is currently really bugging me about your presentation, you neglect to mention that both Spurgeon and Gill while not contemporaries pastored the same Church, the Metropolitan Tabernacle has an incredibly solid and consistent teaching throughout its 400 year life and so to have two mammoths of Baptist thought who taught there to be consistent one to the other is no surprise, I have already given the reasons I believe that some Baptists have turned away from the doctrine and given a rough reasoning for how one would believe it while being consistently orthodox Baptist. What I would like to know Mr 3 Angels Messages is how you are going to transition from Brothers Gill and Spurgeon to Mistress White and her folly, for that is clearly your intention here, you wish to try and put us under the yoke of White and exchange the glory of Christ's completed work for her only just started work.
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Jehovah's Witness teach something entirely skewed from that position, since they went their own way from the Advent movement of the mid 1800's, which picks up Arius heretical belief.

The whole reason why the JW are Arian is that they are spiritually descended from the Adventists when they were Arian, it would help if you were going to try and call us to heretical schismatic groups from Baptists that you knew about the Schismatics from your own group.
 
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

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
So are you going to here assert that the Adventists of the mid 1800's were all purely Trinitarian in their theology and thought Jesus was eternal?

Such a funny assertion, isn't one of the theological concepts that is still considered Adventist orthodoxy that if Jesus had sinned he would have been destroyed? Such cannot mesh with the Nicene-Constantinoplean Trinitarianism, ie. Biblical Trinitarianism.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.