Jesus = Michael?

johansen said:

it does, because no inspired person writes a book full of nonsense and one verse that's accurate and from God.

so, why is the rest of it missing?

Click to expand...

Jude became part of the canon in the 4th century. The canon is closed. If you want to question its inspiration then that’s on you. The book of Jude is not missing anything. Jude, the half brother of Jesus, wrote it with the urgency to expose the false teachers that were infiltrating the church then.

Hentenza said:

Jude became part of the canon in the 4th century. The canon is closed. If you want to question its inspiration then that’s on you. The book of Jude is not missing anything. Jude, the half brother of Jesus, wrote it with the urgency to expose the false teachers that were infiltrating the church then.

Click to expand...

i'm not talking about jude's inspiration.

Jude would have had the full text of this

and likely considered it to be legitamate.

Jude could easily have been wrong on that matter, and likewise with the quote from Enoch.

men make mistakes, even in 400ad.

johansen said:

i'm not talking about jude's inspiration.

Jude would have had the full text of this

Assumption of Moses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and likely considered it to be legitamate.

Jude could easily have been wrong on that matter, and likewise with the quote from Enoch.

men make mistakes, even in 400ad.

Click to expand...

The Assumption of Moses was not chosen for the canon and is not inspired text. The “lost" books, like Enoch and this one, weren't included due to questions about authenticity, authorship, or contradiction with core doctrines. The book of Jude is not missing anything. God is perfectly capable of guiding man in preserving His word.

Hentenza said:

. The book of Jude is not missing anything

Click to expand...

i'm not claiming jude is missing anything.

lets think rationally here:
What are the chances, in a book as long as 1 enoch:

only one sentence is inspired text. and jude read it, and believed it?



rather, read the wiki page:

An alternative explanation is that Jude is compounding material from three sources:

• general Jewish traditions about Michael as a gravedigger for the just as in the Apocalypse of Moses
• contrast with the accusation by Michael of Azazel in the Book of Enoch
• the angel of the Lord rebuking Satan over the body of Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah 3.

This explanation has three arguments in favour: (1) Jude quotes from both 1 Enoch 1:9 and Zechariah 3. (2) Joshua in Zechariah 3 is dead - his grandson is serving as the high priest. The change from the "body of Jesus" to the "body of Moses" would be required to avoid confusion and to reflect the historical context of Zechariah 3 in Nehemiah concerning intermarriage and corruption in the "body" of the priesthood. (3) The example of Zechariah 3 provides an argument against the "slandering of heavenly beings", since the Angel of the Lord does not do in Zech. 3 what Michael is reported to do in 1En1.[5][6]

johansen said:

i'm not claiming jude is missing anything.

Click to expand...

I posted more than just the bit you quoted which explained my thoughts.

johansen said:

lets think rationally here:
What are the chances, in a book as long as 1 enoch:

only one sentence is inspired text. and jude read it, and believed it?

Click to expand...

Now we are gambling? Chances? The only reason why only one sentence is inspired reading is because Jude included it in his epistle. I don’t ever go with “chance”.

johansen said:

rather, read the wiki page:

An alternative explanation is that Jude is compounding material from three sources:

• general Jewish traditions about Michael as a gravedigger for the just as in the Apocalypse of Moses
• contrast with the accusation by Michael of Azazel in the Book of Enoch
• the angel of the Lord rebuking Satan over the body of Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah 3.

This explanation has three arguments in favour: (1) Jude quotes from both 1 Enoch 1:9 and Zechariah 3. (2) Joshua in Zechariah 3 is dead - his grandson is serving as the high priest. The change from the "body of Jesus" to the "body of Moses" would be required to avoid confusion and to reflect the historical context of Zechariah 3 in Nehemiah concerning intermarriage and corruption in the "body" of the priesthood. (3) The example of Zechariah 3 provides an argument against the "slandering of heavenly beings", since the Angel of the Lord does not do in Zech. 3 what Michael is reported to do in 1En1.[5][6]

Click to expand...

Which is the opinion of the writer of the wiki. The Bible actually mentions over 21 books that are more likely lost but no one is making the argument that they should be part of the canon also. For example, the book of Jasher in Jashua 10 and 2 Samuels 1 and the book of the acts of Solomon in 1 Kings 11. The argument in the wiki is actually quite weak as it relies on just similarities.

SabbathBlessings said:

Its was explained in the part of my post you didn't quote. Please feel free to respond to those Scriptures.

Click to expand...

There's nothing to respond to with those Scriptures. They don't say what you want them to say. End of debate.

johansen said:

it does, because no inspired person writes a book full of nonsense and one verse that's accurate and from God.

Click to expand...

St. Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophers. When the Apostle quotes the poet who says, "In Him we move and breathe and have our being" the "him" in the original quote is about Zeus. Paul, instead, quotes it and uses it to speak about the true God, not the false imaginary gods of the Greeks.

Because St. Paul quotes a pagan doesn't mean the entire Pauline corpus is uninspired--it is still inspired Scripture.
Just because St. Luke records Paul quoting a pagan doesn't render the whole Acts of the Apostles uninspired--it is still inspired Scripture.

St. Jude quotes from 2nd Temple period literature--that of Enoch--but that does not mean the various Enoch texts are inspired; nor does it mean St. Jude's epistle is uninspired.

St. Jude's Epistle is a recognized inspired text: It is Holy Scripture.

johansen said:

so, why is the rest of it missing?

Click to expand...

Rest of what is missing? The Epistle of St. Jude? There's no "rest of it" to be missing. We have Jude's entire epistle. It just happens to be a very short epistle.

ViaCrucis said:

Rest of what is missing

Click to expand...

The assumption of moses.

RileyG said:

I thought that believe came from Jehovah Witnesses, who aren’t Trinitarian nor believe Jesus is divine.

Ellen G White was a very prolific writer. I’m not too familiar with her teachings or the teachings of the SDA Church.

Click to expand...

The belief was common to Arian Restorationist groups in the 19th century, and it is contrary to Scripture, indeed even the name of St. Michael indicares his status as not Christ, for Christ is referred to as “Emanuel” - God With Us, and “Jesus” an Hellenization of the Hebrew Joshua and the Aramaic Yeshua meaning “YHWH Saves” - proof of his deity. Christ is not an angel, since all angels are creatures, and are pneumatic.

The epistle of St. Jude, which is canonical inspired scripture, further confirms our Lord’s status, and unlike the Pauline epistles, which some try to negate using 2 Peter 2:16 to shoot down any interpretation which differs from theirs, lacks any means for eisegetes to try to refute it.

Well, I've looked this up several times and my closest conclusion is that Michael and Gabriel are most likely, real created angelic entities with theophonic names. Now why they have theophonic names? I don't know? Seems to have something to do with "rank of archangel". Archangels are the "generals" of the "armies".

The name Michael - loosely translated means "who most assuredly is God".
The name Gabriel - loosely translated means "God-man".

Now these are the only two "archangels" or "chief messengers" that i'm aware of who are named in Scripture. And the "armies" that they are the generals of; may be "angelic host" (Michael) and "army of believers" (Gabriel). As I've noticed that in any communication with human beings; when the angel is named. The name is always Gabriel. I'm not aware of any instances where Michael spoke directly to humans. The closest is in the Book of Daniel where it says Michael came to help Daniel. Although there appears to be nothing recorded as far as Michael actually saying anything to Daniel.

But I don't know any of this "for sure" because the information in Scripture is rather ambiguous.

Besides Lucifer though; there's only one other named angel is Scripture and that is Apollon or Abaddon Which are Greek and Hebrew descriptors of the same entity. This is stated as "the angel of the bottomless pit" and the name means "Destruction". And I do not believe this angel is just another name for Satan. I think this is the difference between "destroyer" and "Destroyer".

The closest "kin" to "Destroyer" is in Exodus; "the angel of the Lord" as "the Destroyer" is the one destroying the 1st born in Egypt. But that word translated "Destroyer" is not the same Hebrew word as Apollon / Abaddon. So is there some form of connection there? (I don't really know.)

So that's my conclusion. Michael and Gabriel are real entities with some form of metaphoric / theophonic names. Similar in the ways that Moses or Solomon are "types" of Christ.

reBoot said:

Jesus = Michael?​

Here is a quote from White's "The Desire of Ages" (1898):

The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.”

- source, page 70

Click to expand...

That same michael could not rebuke Satan, but had to have Jesus do that for Him

SabbathBlessings said:

JW believes Jesus was the archangel a created-being.

We do not beleive Jesus is a created-being- He is the Lord of lords and King of kings, the great I AM. We beleive He uses Titles as Scripture shows in various places.

Click to expand...

Many Sda, including EW husband, held to Arianism herersy, and the Sda doctrine switched form holding to jesus as michael to now more akin to Mormonism, 3 gods united in common purpose

YeshuaFan said:

Many Sda, including EW husband, held to Arianism herersy, and the Sda doctrine switched form holding to jesus as michael to now more akin to Mormonism, 3 gods united in common purpose

Click to expand...

Its amazing the false things you can read on the internet. SDA;s do not believe in 3 gods.

2. The Trinity​

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.
God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation.
God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.
(Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)

People have gotten to a point that whatever they believe in their head, somehow makes it true. A false witness is something we should take seriously.

SabbathBlessings said:

Its amazing the false things you can read on the internet. SDA;s do not believe in 3 gods.

2. The Trinity​

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.
God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation.
God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.
(Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)

https://adventist.org/beliefs#belief-2

People have gotten to a point that whatever they believe in their head, somehow makes it true. A false witness is something we should take seriously.

Click to expand...

YeshuaFan said:

Does Adventism affirm tri-theism? – Answering Adventism

Does the SDA Church believe in multiple gods? Unravel the Adventist "Heavenly Trio" and how is muddies the waters of Christian orthodoxy.

answeringadventism.com

Click to expand...

This ex-Adventist has been debunked more times than I can count. Anyone who dedicates their life to hate, false witness instead of spreading the gospel, says everything. Believe as you wish, I already provided our official statement of beliefs, all will get sorted out in God's time.

SabbathBlessings said:

This ex-Adventist has been debunked more times than I can count. Anyone who dedicates their life to hate, false witness instead of spreading the gospel, says everything. Believe as you wish, I already provided our official statement of beliefs, all will get sorted out in God's time.

Click to expand...

Sda went from holding to a JW view on Jesus to more akin now to a Lds view it would appear

If I remember correctly, there was a minority opinion in some pre-Nicene Christians that Christ and Michael were identical or analogous, and that's probably how the book of Daniel was understood by some- the Son of Man was an angelic or semi-divine figure. Theree's even an Orthodox icon type that depicts Christ as an angel, but it isn't understood literally in modern Orthodoxy.

The philosopher and theologian David Betntley Hart might be useful here, because he'ld argue that ancient Second Temple Judaism, and ancient religion more broadly, had more fluid ideas about divinity that don't fit into later Greek philosophical categories You only really see this in religions like Shinto or Taoism today, but you can see "echoes" of this in Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy.

There are plenty of ancient stories of Moses or Enoch sitting in God's throne and being worshipped, and late ancient Merkabah and Hekhalot mysticism described human ascent to the divine realms, potentially to become a divine or semi-divine being. Most scholars believe this was similar to the background that early Christian theology was working within, not primarily Greek philosophical categories.

The Righterzpen said:

Now these are the only two "archangels" or "chief messengers" that i'm aware of who are named in Scripture.

Click to expand...

In addition to St. Gabriel and St. Michael, St. Raphael and St. Uriel are mentioned in Tobit and 2 Esdras respectively. Now, most Protestants do not accept those books as canonical, but some do (notably Anglicans, at least as far as Tobit is concerned; I’m not sure if they have 2 Esdras in the original version of the KJV or not, I shall have to take a look; a complete KJV includes around 72 books, not 66, because under the 39 Articles the “Apocrypha” (technically a misuse of the term - the early church fathers used the term to refer only to spurious or false books, not books which were to be read for edification; the word “Deuterocanonical” being more accurate) were read for edification and moral instruction, and most Anglicans in the US, such as the Episcopalians and high church continuing Anglicans, later set aside the 39 articles while retaining the books in question, so that any of those books can now also be used as a source of doctrine. In addition my understanding is that Lutherans have an open canon, so in principle Lutherans are free to accept these books and use them if they so desire.

The absolute rejection of the Deuterocanon as a matter of doctrine appears to be more of a Calvinist/Baptist/Evangelical idea.

ListenToTheBible! said:

What was the name of God's son before he was named "Jesus"?

Click to expand...

The Only Begotten Son and Word of God, and also El Elohim and YHWH (all three persons of the Trinity are YHWH since all three are YHWH and El Elohim are names for God and the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are God, three coequal, coeternal and uncreated persons).

However we must be absolutely clear that at the time of our Lord’s Incarnation, when He was born and was named Jesus (Yehshua, the Galilean Aramaic form of Joshua, when means “YHWH Saves”) becoming Emanuel (God With Us), this did not constitute a change to his uncreated, immutable and impassabile Divine Nature. Rather in the Incarnation His Divinity was united with our created Humanity without change, confusion, separation or division, so that our fallen human nature could not only be restored but glorified, allowing us to inherit eternal life and become sons of God by adoption, by grace what Christ is by nature. As St. Athanasius, the author of the document that defined our 27 book New Testament canon, excluding all books we now regard as apocrypha, some of which came very close to being included like 1 Barnabas, as well as Patristic works which St. Athanasius agreed with but did not feel should be included in the New Testament, his belief and that of the majority of early church fathers being the New Testament should consist only of works by the Apostles and Evangelists of the first generation and not their immediate successors like St. Clement or St. Ignatius), and other portions of which came very close to being ommitted and actually were from many Bibles for many years - for instance, the Syriac Peshitta lacks 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation and these books only became accessible to the majority of Aramaic speaking Christians two centuries later when a translation by St. Philoxenus of Mabbug and St. Thomas of Harqel was included in Western editions of the Peshitta Bible, but those used by the Church of the East in the Nineveh Plains, Baghdad, Basra, Kerala and the Malabar Coast continued to only have the 22 books of the original translation.

We can positively exclude the possibility that Jesus Christ is St. Michael because aside from the fact that not one Biblical verse says explicitly that they are the same person, many verses expressly declare that Christ is one with the Father, fully God, the creator of all things, and is eternal (John ch. 1, John ch. 10, et cetera) and that in Him the fullness of the Godhead dwelled bodily. It is made clear He is not subordinate to the father.

Conversely the angels are repeatedly declared to be subordinate to God (and Christ is God) and as the messengers of God.

What is more, Christ is not a messenger but our Savior. And was fully incarnate and fully human, which is incompatible with being an archangel, for Scripture is clear that the Angels are spiritual beings.