Jesus = Michael?

SabbathBlessings said:

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

And as prior noted in not a single instance Jesus being shown to be Michael, then, now or in the future.

It is simply an odd and unneccesary stretch of the imaginations to take various names and titles in the Bible and try to make them into God The Son unless they are meant to be applied to God The Son.

The "chief" can be a messenger and not be God The Son. Paul was the chief of sinners, post salvation no less, 1 Tim. 1:15. Does that mean Paul was a worse sinner than Satan? Unlikely. Satan could even be considered an archangel in the reverse form of the matters, that being evil personified in spirit form and all his little weeds with him.

In any case the whole Jesus used to be or still is Michael is a non-starter. I don't know why the SDA bothers to try to sell that story other than to make them and their members "special."

Blueprints said:

I am a Seventh-day Adventist at present. I am a "proponent" of the Jesus / Michael doctrine, as many before I (we) were, as evidenced in the linked material - Jesus = Michael? The question is, why didn't you consider that material (Pro. 18:13,17)? Many Christians and Reformers throughout the ages have taught / believed the same. So, I was never trying to "hide it", but was most bold in my position. It is never something to be ashamed of.

Click to expand...

IF there were a single statement stating such OR even better, multiple scriptural witnesses expounding on that matter, you'd have a point.

A lot of cults have these little side stories where when their members buy into them, they have special, unique and inside information that "verifies and authorizes" them as "safe."

And we all want to be "safe" don't we? We all need to be absolutely RIGHT in order to guarantee our eternal presence in heaven and not be eternally snuffed out or burned alive forever. Except no one is and can be absolutely RIGHT, other than God. So there's that.

If you like your story you can keep your story. I personally don't think God is going to obliterate you any more than anyone else for the story.

BelieveItOarKnot said:

And as prior noted in not a single instance Jesus being shown to be Michael, then, now or in the future.

It is simply an odd and unneccesary stretch of the imaginations to take various names and titles in the Bible and try to make them into God The Son unless they are meant to be applied to God The Son.

The "chief" can be a messenger and not be God The Son. Paul was the chief of sinners, post salvation no less, 1 Tim. 1:15. Does that mean Paul was worse than Satan? Unlikely. Satan could even be considered an archangel in the reverse form of the matters, that being evil personified in spirit form and all his little weeds with him.

In any case the whole Jesus used to be or still is Michael is a non-starter. I don't know why the SDA bothers to try to sell that story other than to make them and their members "special."

Click to expand...

Only if one chooses to ignore the Scripture presented the voice of the Archangel raises the dead at the Second Coming and for it to later say that voice is Jesus Christ.

This has nothing to do with making members feel special, obviously you only know about SDA’s from what other people tell you, this didn’t even start with the SDA‘s but many God-fearing Reformers. Believer as you wish we all have to stand before someone Greater one day soon.

Take care

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...

Tell me you're a heretic without telling me you are a heretic.

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...

Nah. Michael is Michael. Jesus is Jesus.

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...

First I've heard of that, I always thought it was the Jehovah Witnesses who said Jesus and Michael were the same. And they flat out say Jesus is Michael.

I learned something new. I did a little research to find out exactly what SDA believe and considering how there are many name changes, even when Jesus returns as written in Revelation, he will have a new name that no man knows, it is understandable and I didn't say true, I said understandable...... SDA believe Jesus is holding the position and named Michael while in that position, still with his divine nature while fighting the fallen Angels, who he created.

A look at the belief of the SDA
Michael, My Savior and Rescuer | Sabbath School Net Michael, My Savior and Rescuer | Sabbath School Net

Is Jesus Michael the Archangel? – Answering Adventism https://share.google/Yg7pLyK1xgob5AWXY

I understand how they come to that assumption: in Daniel 4 it is written that the prince of Israel will stand up for them.... In Revelation it is written that Michael and his angels fought against dragon and his angels..... It is also written that Michael and Satan had a dispute when Satan was seeking the body of Moses.

Actually the seventh day activist believe in the Divinity of Christ and all the teachings I've heard them teach but Jehovah witnesses denied the Divinity of Christ.
Who Is Jesus, the Son of God? | Adventist.org https://share.google/NAcFwcmCwNUxHJPQx

Does the way SDA teach interfere with or make a lie out of the Trinity, no it doesn't .... Just like ministers teach God is a single God holding three positions.

Does the belief of the SDA interfere with the Divinity of Jesus no it doesn't .... He is of God and the creator of all things including the Angels.

9Rock9 said:

it was explained to me is that "Michael" is the name the angels use to refer to Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

The problem with that being in Luke 1:31 St. Gabriel, also an Archangel, refers to our Lord as “Jesus” and instructs the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary to give Him that name, which means “YHWH Saves”* (also why would the angels refer to God as Michael? Remember - Jesus Christ is God, just as the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God).

*The name Jesus recorded in the four canonical Gospels, which were originally written in Greek, is a Hellenization of an Aramaic word somewhat like Yeshua, although due to variations in Aramaic dialects, and between Judaean Neo-Aramaic spoken in Jerusalem and Gallilean Neo-Aramaic spoken by our Lord and most or all of His disciples, but not spoken while in Judaea, there is a need for some caution around pronouncing this word; there was an Aramaic scholar on ChristianForums named Steve Caruso who sadly was inactive when I joined in 2019, but his posts were very helpful in this respect), which in turn is an Aramaicization of the Hebrew name Joshua, which means “Jah (YHWH) Saves.”

Hentenza said:

Jesus had no problems rebuking satan in the wilderness. Even prior to the resurrection Jesus was still God.

Click to expand...

Indeed - in His incarnation He put on our human nature, uniting it to His divinity without change, confusion, separation or division. Thus from the moment of His incarnation He is fully God and fully man, of one essence (homoousios) with the Father (as asserted at the Council of Nicaea and in the Creed based on the Gospel According to John), and in Him the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily.

By the way have you seen the amusing Lutheran Satire video with the Irish and St. Patrick on the subject of the Trinity? I had seen it before joining the site and I would assume our Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis and @Ain't Zwinglian are either massive fans or have seen it so many times they’ve either memorized it and can re-enact it in memory or are sick of it, but I greatly appreciate it, since it continues the Lutheran tradition of communicating basic Scriptural doctrine in such a manner as the people understandeth, to paraphrase the Book of Common Prayer.

At any rate recently I saw a video from Hans Fiene specifically on the subject of the Arian error and the J/W mistranslation of John 1:1, which was hilarious (and is closely related to the subject of this thread, since the conflation of St. Michael the Archangel and our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ predates the official acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity by the SDA convention in 1980, or the unoffiical endorsement of it without a vote by SDA leadership in 1931 (albeit using atypical phraseology). Going back to the beginnings of Adventism, Miller was a Trinitarian, but his secretary a Mr. Joshua Hines was not; Miller regarded the idea as an example of what we might call adiaphora (his exact words were “a matter of indifference” which was not an uncommon view in the early 19th century, indeed this is probably why the Stone-Campbell movement rejected the use of the Creeds and it definitely prompted the modification of the Book of Common Prayer by King’s Chapel in Boston to avoid using Trintarian phraseology and thus to avoid offending those with Unitarian or other non-Nicene beliefs while also catering to what one might call the “ultra-Laitudinarians” who regarded the Trinity as non-essential doctrine (in more recent years the liberal Episcopalian bishop James Pike expressed such a view).

So at any rate, this refutation of Arianism might be useful and amusing, and I would argue that if we fully think through the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation and recognize the full deity and humanity of Christ our True God, the idea that he is St. Michael becomes untenable, since God is already ruler of the angels and it seems to be Partialist to assign this function to one person of the Holy Trinity only.

The Liturgist said:

The problem with that being in Luke 1:31 St. Gabriel, also an Archangel, refers to our Lord as “Jesus”

Click to expand...

Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.

Can you point out anywhere in the Bible Gabriel referred to as Archangel? The verse above certainly doesn't say this.

The Liturgist said:

Yes. Can you point out any verse in the Bible where Jesus Christ ie explicitly referred to as Jesus Christ?

Click to expand...

So you don't have a Scripture that support that Gabriel is an Archangel. I thought so.

And yes, Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ

Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows...
John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

When someone answers a question with a question, it usually means they don't have an answer.

SabbathBlessings said:

it usually means they don't have an answer.

Click to expand...

Do you have an answer to this verse?

Daniel 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

This verse alone tells us this is not Christ we are talking about. He is not one of anything. He is the ONE.

truthuprootsevil said:

Does the belief of the SDA interfere with the Divinity of Jesus

Click to expand...

Yes, when you're being called "one of the chief princes" it certainly does.

Michael is holding Satan at bay right now. When it's time he will battle with Satan and his will be cast out, that's when the future tribulation begins. We know this because this is how one is to overcome him-

Revelation 12:11 "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."

But this should not lead anyone to believe that Michael is Christ. We can't change God's Word. If his Word tells us that Michael is "one of the chief princes" that should tells us he is not Christ and that there is more than one chief prince.

JulieB67 said:

Do you have an answer to this verse?

Daniel 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

This verse alone tells us this is not Christ we are talking about. He is not one of anything. He is the ONE.

Click to expand...

Sure....

The Hebrew phrase is אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים ('echad ha-sarim ha-rishonim) can mean:

one of the chief princes
but can also carry the sense of "the first" or "the foremost" among the princes.

Jesus is related as a Prince Isaiah 9:6 Acts 3:15 Dan 8:25 would there ever be a prince greater than Him?

No one else in the Bible has the title of the Archangel except Michael, if you have a verse- please show it.

And please explain how does the voice of the Archangel raise the dead at the Second Coming when we are told its the voice of Jesus Christ who raises the dead.

JulieB67 said:

But this should not lead anyone to believe that Michael is Christ. We can't change God's Word. If his Word tells us that Michael is "one of the chief princes" that should tells us he is not Christ and that there is more than one chief prince.

Click to expand...

So if Jesus is called a Prince are you saying that a created angel would be equal and the same as Jesus who is God? Why would He not be the chief of Princes? He is even referred to as the Prince of princes. Dan8:25

SabbathBlessings said:

Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.

Can you point out anywhere in the Bible Gabriel referred to as Archangel? The verse above certainly doesn't say this.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, my prior reply to you contained a typo. My intended reply was this:

Yes, I can. But can you point out any single verse in the Bible where Jesus Christ is explicitly referred to as Michael the Archangel?

The Liturgist said:

Forgive me, my prior reply to you contained a typo. My intended reply was this:

Yes, I can. But can you point out any single verse in the Bible where Jesus Christ is explicitly referred to as Michael the Archangel?

Click to expand...

So still going to answer a question with a question. If you had an answer from Scripture, you would just post it. You didn't post it when you made the statement and now not posting it when asked directly.

SabbathBlessings said:

No one else in the Bible has the title of the Archangel except Michael, if you have a verse- please show it.

Click to expand...

You did not answer how he is "one" of the chief princes -all in lower case. It's definitely not a sign of Christ's divinity. And again, it also means that there are more than one chief prince.

Jesus is related as a Prince Isaiah 9:6 Acts 3:15 Dan 8:25 would there ever be a prince greater than Him?

Click to expand...

I didn't have an issue with the word prince, it's the "one of the chief princes" and in lower case
Isaiah, Acts and Daniel all refer to Christ as Prince, uppercase. There is an obvious distinction. So of course I would have an issue with this-


Daniel 8:25 "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

vs this

Daniel 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Why would Daniel first refer to Christ and call him the Prince of princes and then two chapters later call him Michael, "one" of the chief princes? And in lower case for reference.
That makes no sense. You're absolutely reaching here.

SabbathBlessings said:

No one else in the Bible has the title of the Archangel except Michael, if you have a verse- please show it.

Click to expand...

I think you mean archangel -lower case. And I think there's a better case there's more than one archangel than Christ and Michael being the same as I've just shown. One of the chief princes -plural.

archangel.
From archo and aggelos; a chief angel -- archangel. Which can certainly go back to "one of the chief princes" Meaning there are more than one.

see GREEK archo

see GREEK aggelos

SabbathBlessings said:

And please explain how does the voice of the Archangel raise the dead at the Second Coming when we are told its the voice of Jesus Christ who raises the dead.

Click to expand...

I Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with a voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;"

This all happens simultaneously.

JulieB67 said:

You did not answer how he is "one" of the chief princes -all in lower case. It's definitely not a sign of Christ's divinity. And again, it also means that there are more than one chief prince.

Click to expand...

I did answer it perhaps you missed it

The Hebrew phrase is אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים ('echad ha-sarim ha-rishonim) can mean:

one of the chief princes
but can also carry the sense of "the first" or "the foremost" among the princes.

JulieB67 said:

I didn't have an issue with the word prince, it's the "one of the chief princes" and in lower case
Isaiah, Acts and Daniel all refer to Christ as Prince, uppercase. So of course I would have an issue with this-

Click to expand...

So in your view, if Jesus is called a Prince He would not be the chief?

JulieB67 said:

Daniel 8:25 "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

vs this

Daniel 10:13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Click to expand...

Already addressed

JulieB67 said:

Why would Daniel first refer to Christ and call him the Prince of princes and then two chapters later call him Michael, "one" of the chief princes? And in lower case for reference.
That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Right. Which is exactly why one of the reasons many of the Reformers and the SDA's has concluded its one of the same, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

As a FYI punctuations came from translators.

JulieB67 said:

I think you mean archangel -lower case. And I think there's a better case there's more than one archangel than Christ and Michael being the same as I've just shown. One of the chief princes -plural.

archangel.
From archo and aggelos; a chief angel -- archangel. Which can certainly go back to "one of the chief princes" Meaning there are more than one.

see GREEK archo

see GREEK aggelos

Click to expand...

Already addressed

JulieB67 said:

I Thessalonians 4:16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with a voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;"

This all happens simultaneously.

Click to expand...

Its the voice of Jesus who raises the dead

John 5:28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Yet in 1 Thess 4:16 its the voice of the Archangel. How could that be unless its one of the same. The SDA's do not believe Jesus is a created angel. We believe He goes by many Titles and this is another example of it.

SabbathBlessings said:

Sure....

The Hebrew phrase is אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים ('echad ha-sarim ha-rishonim) can mean:

one of the chief princes
but can also carry the sense of "the first" or "the foremost" among the princes.

Jesus is related as a Prince Isaiah 9:6 Acts 3:15 Dan 8:25 would there ever be a prince greater than Him?

No one else in the Bible has the title of the Archangel except Michael, if you have a verse- please show it.

And please explain how does the voice of the Archangel raise the dead at the Second Coming when we are told it’s the voice of Jesus Christ who raises the dead.

Click to expand...

So now Jesus, who is God, the alpha and the omega, is just a mere prince? The foremost among princes is still a prince and well below God.

Hentenza said:

So now Jesus, who is God, the alpha and the omega, is just a mere prince? The foremost among princes is still a prince and well below God.

Click to expand...

Who said Jesus is a mere prince? Certainly not I, but He is called a Prince in Scripture- in fact called the Princes of princes, why would He not be the chief if He is called one? Is there anyone above Him? Not in my view.