Jesus = Michael?

ListenToTheBible! said:

He was not a messenger (angel) OF God, but was a saviorGod nailed to a cross?
Where were the other Two?

Click to expand...

This question is concerning, since it implies you disagree with the Nicene Creed - is that correct?

You should be aware of course that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, specifically, (the 325 version is good but the 381 version adds additional protections against Semi-Arianism and Pneumatomachy, that is to say, the doctrine of Macedonius, who denied the deity and personhood of God the Holy Spirit) is the normative, definitive Christian denomination, accepted (with only one variation, that being the filioque clause) by all Christian denominations - it is the means by which we can separate the Christian wheat from the chaff of non-Christian cults such as Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science and other heretics who preach a false Gospel. Even if one is not in a church which recites the Creed or has hypothetical objections to the idea of creeds, this document is still useful as a Symbol of Faith, as the authoritative text which allows us to identify and differentiate between Christians and adherents of other religions such as Swedenborgianism, Theosophism, Islam, Valentinism, Paulicianism, Bogomilism, or their recent revivals, which is why even the Christian Church / Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ make didactic use of it despite a quixotic opposition to the concept of a creed (which alas, is not a coherent theological position, since any definitive statement of belief is creedal, and the Symbol of Faith adopted by the 150 Greek Orthodox bishops at the Council of Constantinople in 381, who, unlike their forebears at Nicaea in 325, were not attending what was meant as an ecumenical council but rather merely as a local council, hence the absence of representatives of the Western church (the ancestors of the Roman Catholics and Protestants of the present) and of Syrian bishops or even Cypriot or Alexandrian Greek bishops, but their revision of the creed was adopted ecumenically, by all local churches everywhere, with the only issue being whether or not the filioque addition made in Spain in the sixth century in response to Adoptionist heretics denying the eternal status of God the Son should be permitted - we Orthodox say no, the original creed is sufficient to preclude Adoptionism, but the Catholics and my confessional Lutheran friends @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch say yes, and such as important Orthodox leaders as St. Maximos the Confessor and more recently Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia were Filioque “doves” as am I (but we also can’t risk a schism entering into full communion with a church that accepts the filioque, however intercommunion like what we have with the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch seems to me to be entirely reasonable and desirable).

9Rock9 said:

So, I used to associate with the 7th Day Adventist Church even though I never officially joined them. Even though I no longer agree with their doctrines, I still find their theology fascinating and like to debate them from the Bible.

There is one doctrine I associated with the SDA that I don't recall hearing about during my time among them. It's the idea that Jesus Christ and the Archangel Michael are the same person.

Now, tbf to the Adventists, thet don't actually think that Jesus was an angel or a created being. How it was explained to me is that "Michael" is the name the angels use to refer to Jesus Christ. Also, "archangel" refers to a position or rank, not a type of Angel. In other words, Jesus is not an angel, but he is the commander over the angels.

Idk what to make of this. It's definitely a niche view, but I don't think it's exactly heretical since the Adventists are denying Christ's divinity nor his eternal nature.

While there seems to be some similarities with the Jehovah's Witness doctrine, there are some differences. It's not surprising since the JWs came out of Adventism.

What are your thoughts aboht this?

Click to expand...

Yes, the Son of the Father, is known by many names, designations, titles and positions, and among them, are "Jesus" and "Michael". Consider - Michael The Archangel Who Is Like Unto God The Highest Messenger (BOOK) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The WTS / JW simply borrowed a piece of Christian and Reformation doctrine, but also borrowed some of Catholicism's Arian doctrine and mixed the two. They did not originate Jesus = Michael doctrine.

FreeinChrist said:

The affirmation of the Trinity is in their Articles of Faith.

Click to expand...

Not really. See the following distinction - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

FreeinChrist said:

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

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.)​

​

Belief in the Trinity, or the Godhead as you call it, is required to have a Christian faith label on this site.

Click to expand...

Again, see previous post - Jesus = Michael?. Thank you. Fundamental 2 is to be corrected by Fundamental 1. The 'fundamentals' are also not credal (at all).

9Rock9 said:

It's definitely a niche view

Click to expand...

Definitely

9Rock9 said:

I don't think it's exactly heretical since the Adventists are denying Christ's divinity nor his eternal nature.

Click to expand...

Clever plays on words are common in cults. Even though the SDA is not considered by some to be a cult, others in orthodoxy will say they are definitely a cult and the above is part of why.

• Psalm 8:5
  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
• Hebrews 2:7
  Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
• Hebrews 2:9
  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

So much for "ruler OVER angels." And as a sidenote, the term angel means, simply, messenger. In this way the term can be applied to "holy" messengers, "wicked" messengers, people as messengers, Jesus as a messenger, and even God as a Messenger. We are advised to lean heavily, even totally on every Word of the last 2 Messengers herein.


In God's Axiom, The Greatest Is Servant of ALL. Kind of an exact reverse on survival of the fittest rule of the flesh world.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Definitely


Clever plays on words are common in cults. Even though the SDA is not considered by some to be a cult, others in orthodoxy will say they are definitely a cult and the above is part of why.

• Psalm 8:5
  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
• Hebrews 2:7
  Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
• Hebrews 2:9
  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

So much for "ruler OVER angels." And as a sidenote, the term angel means, simply, messenger. In this way the term can be applied to "holy" messengers, "wicked" messengers, people as messengers, Jesus as a messenger, and even God as a Messenger. We are advised to lean heavily, even totally on every Word of the last 2 Messengers herein.


In God's Axiom, The Greatest Is Servant of ALL. Kind of an exact reverse on survival of the fittest rule of the flesh world.

Click to expand...

SDA’s do not believe that Jesus is a created angel. This is not an honest view of what we believe. Jesus is everlasting no beginning no end, King of kings, Lord of lords.

What people accuse is really of no consequence, the majority got it wrong about Jesus when He came the first time and the names people called Him, most confessed believers of God. God will sort all of this out soon enough.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Definitely


Clever plays on words are common in cults. Even though the SDA is not considered by some to be a cult, others in orthodoxy will say they are definitely a cult and the above is part of why.

• Psalm 8:5
  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
• Hebrews 2:7
  Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
• Hebrews 2:9
  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

So much for "ruler OVER angels." And as a sidenote, the term angel means, simply, messenger. In this way the term can be applied to "holy" messengers, "wicked" messengers, people as messengers, Jesus as a messenger, and even God as a Messenger. We are advised to lean heavily, even totally on every Word of the last 2 Messengers herein.


In God's Axiom, The Greatest Is Servant of ALL. Kind of an exact reverse on survival of the fittest rule of the flesh world.

Click to expand...

The remnant of the Seventh-day Adventist world-wide movement, does not have "Clever plays on words", but such opponents which think and say such, have deemed such peoples a "cult", but that just places them in good company with Paul:


So-called 'orthodoxy' was chosen as a name among themselves years after their own separation (Rev. 17) from the true church (Rev. 12). Simply designating oneself, or group, as 'orthodoxy' does not actually make it so in reality, especially in comparison with the final authority in all matters of faith and practice (the Bible; Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11). Anyone can choose a name for themselves, just look at the 'LDS' (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) as an example, or the WTS / JW (WatchTower and Tract Society / JEHOVAH's Witnesses), among others.

You, presently, have a misunderstanding of the Seventh-day Adventist position on Michael / Jesus, as well as the verses you cited (Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:7,9). "Michael" is the designation of the pre-incarnate (human flesh) Son of the Father, in Heaven (Dan. 10:13,21, 12:1; Jud. 1:9; Rev. 12:7) . "Jesus" is the designation given to the 'incarnate' (human fleshed) Son of the Father, in earth (Mat. 1:21; Luk. 1:31). He retains both designations, as He does for all the others, "Lamb of God", "Immanuel", "Shiloh", "David", "angel", "archangel", "prophet", "priest", "high priest", "king", &c., post resurrection & ascension.

Psa. 8:5, Heb. 2:7,9, are referring to the nature of the Son of the Father coming in the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh (Rom. 8:3). Notice the word "made". The Son is eternal and never "made", but the humanity was so "made":


In Philippians, it is expressly stated that before the 'incarnation', the Son of the Father, was / is, in nature eternal Deity / God:


This places Him above all created 'angels' (messengers), as Hebrews states:



Hebrews 1 makes a clear distinction between the eternal 'angel' (messenger, 'archangel' (highest / greatest messenger) of the Father (Heb. 1:2, "spoken unto us by his Son", which makes the Son the greatest / highest messenger of the Father; Mat. 21:37; Jhn. 12:49), and the created 'angels' (messenger such as Gabriel or 'Herald', or the human prophets (like Malachi, literally meaning 'angel' / 'messenger'), &c.), but it also links them as "fellows" (not by nature, but by their office as varied 'messengers' (angels) for the Father's words to mankind). The Son of the Father is therefore a "fellow" messenger (angel) to the others noted, but is of a higher nature originally (Deity), but also joined Himself by another nature (humanity, like Malachi) to those lower (as Adam the first had been) than the created angelic hosts (like Gabriel).

Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:7,9, are not saying that the Son is not also the 'archangel' (highest messenger) of the Father; not the office / position. Those texts are simply addressing the humanity (human nature) of the Son in His incarnation in the time of this world. He had to take on the nature of fallen Adam to save fallen Adam. That has nothing to say about His eternal office as archangel (highest messenger) of the Father. So in His preincarnate position, He commanded the created angels (like Gabriel; Dan. 8:16). Even in His humanity He commanded the created 'angels' (heavenly and humanity). Who do you think did the bidding at His word to heal - Mat. 8:5-13?

So, in either place, Heaven or Earth, the Son (Michael / Jesus) is still the ruler over the angels (heavenly or earthly) and that position / office is not altered by the secondary nature (humanity) taken upon Himself.

Yes, correct, the word 'angel' simply means 'messenger', and as you just agreed (in print), "... Jesus as a messenger, and even God as a Messenger. ...", and as such, the logical conclusion, drawn from the beginning, even of your own statement, is that Jesus being such an "messenger" (angel) of the Father, and being in nature also as "God as Messenger" for God His Father (Jhn. 20:17; Heb. 1:8,10), is therefore also the highest messenger that the Father sends, and by definition, is the archangel (ruler over messengers, highest messenger for the Father) of the Father. It is inescapable in its ending. It may be denied, but this is only to deny the beginning as well, for the two ends are linked throughout and are inseparable.

Blueprints said:

Yes, the Son of the Father, is known by many names, designations, titles and positions, and among them, are "Jesus" and "Michael".

Click to expand...

False, and damnable heresy. Jesus is Jesus, the Eternal God-Man.

Michael is a creature.

ViaCrucis said:

False, and damnable heresy. Jesus is Jesus, the Eternal God-Man.

Michael is a creature.

Click to expand...

Simply citing 'you' is not evidence contrary to what I stated in evidence, nor even evidence for your own biased opinion.

Blueprints said:

Yes, the Son of the Father, is known by many names, designations, titles and positions, and among them, are "Jesus" and "Michael". Consider - Michael The Archangel Who Is Like Unto God The Highest Messenger (BOOK) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The WTS / JW simply borrowed a piece of Christian and Reformation doctrine, but also borrowed some of Catholicism's Arian doctrine and mixed the two. They did not originate Jesus = Michael doctrine.

Click to expand...

But we read of Michael in Daniel 10:

(Dan 10:13) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.

Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. No way is he "one of the chief princes."

And Jude wrote this of Michael:

(Jud 1:9) Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Can it be imagined that the Lord Jesus Christ was ever in a situation where He "did not dare" to do anything, particularly when contending with the devil?

Blueprints said:

The remnant of the Seventh-day Adventist world-wide movement, does not have "Clever plays on words", but such opponents which think and say such, have deemed such peoples a "cult", but that just places them in good company with Paul:

Act_24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Click to expand...

Now you sound like a proponent. No sense trying to hide it.

I have no issues with the law and the prophets. But what conclusions people make about those matters are an entirely different matter. I prefer the universal applicability understanding stated by Jesus in Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4 and Deut. 8:3, that man shall live by every Word of God. Simple enough?

Blueprints said:

So-called 'orthodoxy' was chosen as a name among themselves years after their own separation (Rev. 17) from the true church (Rev. 12). Simply designating oneself, or group, as 'orthodoxy' does not actually make it so in reality, especially in comparison with the final authority in all matters of faith and practice (the Bible; Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11). Anyone can choose a name for themselves, just look at the 'LDS' (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) as an example, or the WTS / JW (WatchTower and Tract Society / JEHOVAH's Witnesses), among others.

Click to expand...

We can face another fact, that all believing sects are in fact various forms of cults in the over arching sense of the term cult.

And an again general view of all cults is that they ALL, to the last one, claim exclusive authority of various forms and often to, cough cough, make victims of their group via various manipulations, all containing partial truths in order to fasten them into the sect and keep them coming (and paying). The largest threat instrument is extortion via the threat of eternal hell or eternal death. As if temporal hell/death in the here and now, is not enough.

Blueprints said:

You, presently, have a misunderstanding of the Seventh-day Adventist position on Michael / Jesus, as well as the verses you cited (Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:7,9). "Michael" is the designation of the pre-incarnate (human flesh) Son of the Father, in Heaven (Dan. 10:13,21, 12:1; Jud. 1:9; Rev. 12:7) . "Jesus" is the designation given to the 'incarnate' (human fleshed) Son of the Father, in earth (Mat. 1:21; Luk. 1:31). He retains both designations, as He does for all the others, "Lamb of God", "Immanuel", "Shiloh", "David", "angel", "archangel", "prophet", "priest", "high priest", "king", &c., post resurrection & ascension.

Click to expand...

Oh, I heard it clear enough. In "conventional terms" most of orthodoxy is going to describe such matters as "Christophany(s)" and not "attach" the name "Michael" to them as being pre-incarnate Jesus.

Pre-incarnate Jesus is legit. Michael as such is not. Another simple fact is that there is NO DIRECT STATEMENT anywhere in the scriptures that state Michael is Jesus, period. The above citings do not necessarily lead to Michael being pre-incarnate Jesus unless we fold out terms and conditions like "who is like God" but the same can be said about many names and terms in the O.T.

We do know that the O.T. came with "mediation" via Angels, both to the benefit and detriment of Israel and other nations. None of that means Michael is Jesus either. That connection is a massive, confusing and unnecessary STRETCH. But some cults are into such distinctions, thinking that makes them bearers of inside exclusive info that may even hinge the believers eternal fates that is not accepted by other cults. Just as some very minor and really out there cultish folk think Gabriel impregnated Mary. It's just weird and unnecessary. Michael is Michael. Gabriel is Gabriel. Both Holy Angel entities. The whole angel thing can get out of hand sometimes, as in the classic "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (or a needle point)." Metaphysical morphology.

That being said the super majority of these various cults have adopted scripturally legitimate baseline positions aka orthodox understandings, which I accept, at least at the fringes, having studied the bulk of the matters over a long period of time.

Let's face it. There are a lot of strange things that arrive with scripture and the readers thereof. There are legitimate uses for baselines to understand the systems. Does not mean a single term such as "grace" for example in Roman catholicism is the same term as grace in Protestantism's, or SDAism. A lot of orthodoxy have their own special, unique, and distinctive word games on meanings/terms, such as grace.

Paul coined the term "however Christ is preached, whether in pretence or in truth, I rejoice" iirc. So it is probably at least a collective of pretence and truth across the board in every "cult" because we ALL quite factually only see and know in part, contrary to any other cultic game claims that say otherwise.

Blueprints said:

He had to take on the nature of fallen Adam to save fallen Adam

Click to expand...

Well, let's apply the critical massive distinction here, "but without SIN." Hamartiology can open other cans of various worms, such as Jesus taking on the sin of the world, etc. Non of that makes the "Body or Mind of Jesus" sinful. And again, various fringe cults will say Jesus was tempted just like the rest of us, but there is that massive critical distinction of "but without sin" that no one else has claim to other than God in the flesh, Jesus, the Son. Not Michael the pre-incarnate Son. I won't even get into the sinless Mary nonsense

We know that the Spirit of Christ spoke through the prophets. We know that the Spirit of Christ still speaks, through His Word, as given to us today. We do at this point do seem to have enough and sufficient Word to assure that things are on course in creation to get to the finish line.

Blueprints said:

So, in either place, Heaven or Earth, the Son (Michael / Jesus) is still the ruler over the angels (heavenly or earthly) and that position / office is not altered by the secondary nature (humanity) taken upon Himself.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well, you posted a lot of scripture which I do appreciate, but exactly ZERO of those citings stated Michael was/is Jesus. Sorry. Case wasn't made.

God Upholds all things. That doesn't mean God was/is Michael or that Jesus was/is Michael. God upholding all things doesn't make all things God (pantheism) either.

We could actually make a much better case to say that Jesus' Name should really be Joshua but again I wouldn't think our eternal destiny will hinge on such a matter. Some really out there cults will make even the name of God spelling critical to people's eternal fates. Blech on all of it, if that's what it's used for.

I appreciate some of the SDA stuff but they are off base on this one as they are on their Saturday schtick, their works gospel, and their tablet(s) in the temple stuff. I could go on but you get the point. It's just an unnecessary stretch to go where you seem to have went, and I'd say at least one (or more) of their little cult hooks is still stuck in your hide.

Doesn't mean I think God will burn you alive forever or eternally snuff you for it, so there's that.

SabbathBlessings said:

SDA’s do not believe that Jesus is a created angel

Click to expand...

Uh, I never said they did. What I did observe is that the term "messenger meaning angel meaning messenger" can apply in a LOT of different directions to a LOT of different entities and agents in the Bible.

Some people have this petty little thing that when the term "angel" comes into play it automatically means HOLY, which is not the case.

And in case you missed it, there really is NOT one single instance in the entire Bible where Michael is stated to be Jesus or pre-incarnate Jesus, so there's that. IF there was you'd actually have a case, but there isn't.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Uh, I never said they did.

Click to expand...

You quoted three passages of created angles and applied it to the SDA’s view of Jesus which is false and misleading

BelieveItOarKnot said:

Some people have this petty little thing that when the term "angel" comes into play it automatically means HOLY, which is not the case.

Click to expand...

Agree, the devil and his angles, created fallen beings that is a good example of not being holy.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

And in case you missed it, there really is NOT one single instance in the entire Bible where Michael is stated to be Jesus or pre-incarnate Jesus, so there's that. IF there was you'd actually have a case, but there isn't.

Click to expand...

Well there is the prediction that the Son of God’s voice will raise the dead at His Second Coming John5:25,28-29 and then elsewhere its the voice of the Archangel that raises the dead 1 Thes4:16

Jesus goes by many Titles in Scripture some examples

• Bread of Life — John 6:35, 48
• Light of the World — John 8:12; 9:5
• The Door — John 10:9
• The Good Shepherd — John 10:11, 14
• The Resurrection and the Life — John 11:25
• The Way, the Truth, and the Life — John 14:6
• The True Vine — John 15:1, 5
• Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace — Isaiah 9:6
• Branch — Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 6:12
• Servant — Isaiah 42:1; 52:13; Matthew 12:18
• Man of Sorrows — Isaiah 53:3
• Root of Jesse — Isaiah 11:10; Romans 15:12
• The LORD Our Righteousness — Jeremiah 23:6
• Sun of Righteousness — Malachi 4:2
• Cornerstone / Chief Cornerstone — Isaiah 28:16; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6
• Rock — 1 Corinthians 10:4

Jesus is not a literal rock or bread, or vine or sun, Jesus is not created and angel does mean messenger and has been referred to as God in Scripture

• Genesis 22:11–18 — the Angel of the LORD speaks as God to Abraham.
• Exodus 3:2–6 — the Angel of the LORD appears in the burning bush and identifies Himself as "I AM" / the God of Abraham.
• Exodus 23:20–23 — God sends an Angel in whom "my name is in him," with authority to pardon transgression (a divine prerogative).
• Judges 13:18 — the Angel of the LORD's name is "Wonderful" (cf. Isaiah 9:6, where "Wonderful" is the Messiah).

"Archangel" comes from the Greek archangelos — a compound of archē (chief, first, ruler, beginning) and angelos (messenger/angel). So it literally means "chief messenger" or "chief of the angels."

which is another Title for Jesus as its His voice that raises the dead. This is not a unique teaching of the SDA church many of the Reformers believed this as well.