How can the two be the same?

PaleHorse · Jun 13, 2009

Pythons said:
Now, Palehorse. Why does every translation EXCEPT the SDA translation translate a plural in heads, princes or angels and the SDA translation insist that it is not plural?

Ummm... the Clear Word isn't a translation nor does it claim to be - it's a paraphrase. In your zeal to defame SDA understandings you overlook the obvious and in doing so you lose integrity because strawman arguments are dishonorable. In the PREFACE it reads:
"The Clear Word is not a translation, but a devotional paraphrase... It should not be considered a study Bible."
On the cover we find the following: "An expanded paraphrase..." - Adventists do not use the Clear Word for study or to establish any doctrine; so attempting to put it on the same level as the Jehovah's Witnesses' New Word Translation is intellectually dishonest.

Regardless, allow me to explain once again regarding the whole singular/plural issue:

"Princes" is plural - I am not refuting that nor is it relevant, for "princes" is in reference to the 'angels', i.e. the host, which all agree number more than one. What IS relevant is the number of archangels (for that is the question at hand); and you have yet to show me one biblical reference that indicates there are more than one archangel. According to Jude 1:9 there is one archangel; "THE archangel" and he is called "Michael".

PaleHorse · Jun 13, 2009

~setting this thread to email me when replies are posted~

Pythons · Jun 14, 2009

PaleHorse said:
Ummm... the Clear Word isn't a translation nor does it claim to be - it's a paraphrase. In your zeal to defame SDA understandings you overlook the obvious and in doing so you lose integrity because strawman arguments are dishonorable.

1000 pardons good Sir. Indeed, the Clear Word Bible is a paraphrase Bible generated by and used by Seventh-day Adventists if you and the CWB says so.

Palehorse said:
In the PREFACE it reads:
"The Clear Word is not a translation, but a devotional paraphrase... It should not be considered a study Bible."
On the cover we find the following: "An expanded paraphrase..." - Adventists do not use the Clear Word for study or to establish any doctrine; so attempting to put it on the same level as the Jehovah's Witnesses' New Word Translation is intellectually dishonest.

Allow me to quote the meaning of Paraphrase,

Meaning of the word said:
a restatement of a text or passage giving THE MEANING in another form, as for clearness; rewording.

Par"a*phrase\, n. [L. paraphrasis, Gr. ?, from ? to say the same thing in other words; ? beside + ? to speak: cf. F. paraphrase. See Para-, and Phrase.] A restatement of a text, passage, or work, expressing the meaning of the original in another form, generally for the sake of its clearer and fuller exposition; a setting forth the signification of a text in other and ampler terms; a free translation or rendering; -- opposed to metaphrase.

You didn't catch what I said, I said the Clear Word Bible WASN'T on the same level as the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation. In this specific case it's lower.

I would also like to add that of course the CWB does not "establish" any doctrines as the points of SDA faith were established by Ellen White transmitting what the Holy Spirit told her. This is why the CWB renders Daniel 10, 13 as it does.

Ellen White said:
I know and understand that we are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose.

The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error.As the points of OUR FAITH were THUS established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays.

Back to the point about the JW's translation, here is the NWT

NWT said:
But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Mi´cha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia.

Contrasted, not compared, with the Clear Word Bible, A Seventh-day Adventist, errr, Paraphrase Bible.

Clear Word Bible said:
then Michael, the prince of the Lord's host, came to help me.

So, at least as far as this Scripture is concerned, the Clear Word Bible isn't a Paraphrase after all, it's a Translation, only it is translating from one meaning to another whereas the new meaning is alien to all known existing translations. Strawman arguments? We shall see about that.

Palehorse said:
Regardless, allow me to explain once again regarding the whole singular/plural issue:

"Princes" is plural - I am not refuting that nor is it relevant, for "princes" is in reference to the 'angels', i.e. the host, which all agree number more than one. What IS relevant is the number of archangels (for that is the question at hand); and you have yet to show me one biblical reference that indicates there are more than one archangel. According to Jude 1:9 there is one archangel; "THE archangel" and he is called "Michael".

Yeah, according to Jude 1, 9 Michael is not Christ.

Jude 1 said:
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

If the Bible is to intrepret itself the above Scripture fails the test of teaching that Michael is God due to the following,

2 Peter 2 said:
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Ellen White RH October 14 said:
And there are many grown-up persons who need to enter the school of Christ and learn his meekness and lowliness of heart, else they will venture to do that which Michael the archangel dared not do

"Before the Lord"???? An archangel IS an angel Palehorse and 2 Peter 2 has just informed us "angels" do not bring a railing accusation against dignities "before the Lord".

Your explanation is as devastating to your argument as it is to SDA theology. You claim that Michael the archangel is Christ and He is the cheif "Prince" of the heavenly host (s). You then ask me to provide a Biblical example of more then one archangel. How about I preface my answer with a few quotes,

Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #18 said:
As the Lord's messenger, her [Ellen White's] writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.

1st,

Ellen White said:
Sin originated with him who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and was highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of heaven. Lucifer, "son of the morning," was first of the covering cherubs, holy and undefiled.

2nd,

Ellen White said:
Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence.

Think about it for a minute, Jesus dared not to bring a railing accusation against the devil BEFORE THE LORD! I guess it makes perfect sense because at the time of Jude 9 Jesus wasn't "The Lord", He was an archangel. Satan was once an archangel as well. Jesus was exalted and so was Satan,

Ellen White said:
Satan was a beautiful, exalted angel, and would have remained so forever had he not withdrawn his allegiance from God

Ellen White Testimony for the Church said:
All should understand that Satan was once an exalted angel. His rebellion shut him out of Heaven, but did not destroy his powers and make him a beast. Since his fall he has turned his mighty strength against the government of Heaven. He has been growing

So, in answer to your question, according to Ellen White, there was a time when there were TWO archangels AT THE SAME TIME with one being named Michael and the other being named Lucifer. How is that for an answer.

FreeinChrist · Jun 14, 2009

Pythons said:
So, at least as far as this Scripture is concerned, the Clear Word Bible isn't a Paraphrase after all, it's a Translation, only it is translating from one meaning to another whereas the new meaning is alien to all known existing translations. Strawman arguments? We shall see about that.

That does not prove anything in regards to whether it is a paraphrase or not.

Yeah, according to Jude 1, 9 Michael is not Christ.

If the Bible is to intrepret itself the above Scripture fails the test of teaching that Michael is God due to the following,

"Before the Lord"???? An archangel IS an angel Palehorse and 2 Peter 2 has just informed us "angels" do not bring a railing accusation against dignities "before the Lord".

While I personally believe that Michael the Archangel is not a name for preIncarnate Christ, I am not sure you are supporting your position in this.

So, in answer to your question, according to Ellen White, there was a time when there were TWO archangels AT THE SAME TIME with one being named Michael and the other being named Lucifer. How is that for an answer.

You were asked where in scripture there is mention of another archangel other than Michael - you failed to do so.
Instead you are equating "cherub" with "archangel" and that "exalted angel" means the same as "archangel". That arguement falls short.

Now there has been a position among Christians who beleive in the Trinity that "Michael the Archangel" is preIncarnate Christ, and that "The Angel of the Lord" is preIncarnate Christ. The position uses the term "angel" in the broadest sense - that of a "messenger", and NOT a created being like the angelic host. Please see this site: MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL ..... JESUS?

From what I have read, that seems to be the position of Ellen White - a position which you are misstating which even I, a nonSDA member who does not believe that Michael is the name for preIncarnate Christ, can see.

Pythons · Jun 15, 2009

FreeinChrist said:
That does not prove anything in regards to whether it is a paraphrase or not.

I've most certainly proved that the CWB is not paraphrasing ANY other translation, therefore, by default, it becomes a "translation" of the Hebrew text. A translation, I would add, that departs in a most radical way from any English Tanach I have read.

Now it's possible I've jumped the gun here. It's possible that CWB states that it is a "paraphrase" of Ellen G White and obviously I would agree that it is so, as it certainly does say what Ellen said in a different way, if that's what up, my apologies. Other then that, to paraphrase is to say the same thing in a different way and if the CWB does not say the same thing as ALL the other translations then it's either a paraphrase of Ellen White or a Translation of the Hebrew text. How would you prove it?

I don't fall for pouring in new and alien meanings to previously established words. Paraphrase is an established word with a clearly defined meaning.

FreeinChrist said:
While I personally believe that Michael the Archangel is not a name for preIncarnate Christ, I am not sure you are supporting your position in this.

I'll step up my game then. I do appreciate your comment and would not want to be wasting my time if all it took was a little more effort on my part.

FreeinChrist said:
You were asked where in scripture there is mention of another archangel other than Michael - you failed to do so.
Instead you are equating "cherub" with "archangel" and that "exalted angel" means the same as "archangel". That arguement falls short.

Ellen White stated that Lucifer was A) once an archangel B) a covering cherub C) stood next to God and D) was highly exalted. My argument proves, without a doubt, that according to Ellen White, Lucifer was an archangel. As in Lucifer the archangel which sounds very similar to Michael the archangel, Gabriel the archangel, etc.

Luke 1 said:
And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Ellen White said:
Sin originated with him who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and was highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of heaven. Lucifer, "son of the morning," was first of the covering cherubs, holy and undefiled. He stood in the presence of the great Creator

In case you have yet to catch what I'm doing here please understand that I'm juxtaposing comments about about Michael the archangel, Lucifer the archangel and Gabriel the archangel. Seventh-day Adventists believe that the teachings of Ellen White come from the Bible (Biblically supported) so when Ellen says Michael is Christ the Bible must somewhere teach it. This is why I quoted the SDA fundamental belief that states that Ellen's writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth. Remember FreeinChrist, the Scriptures, according to SDA fundamental belief, are,

FB #1 said:
the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history

And Ellen White's texts are,

FB #18 said:
a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested

Therefore, if Ellen states that Satan once stood in the presence of God and he was an archangel then Gabriel, who Sacred Scripture states stands in the presence of God is an archangel. As a Baptist I would assume you are familiar with Strong's #1043

Strong's #1043 said:
Gabriel gab-ree-ale' of Hebrew origin (1403); Gabriel, an archangel:--Gabriel.

Strong's #3413 said:
Michael mikh-ah-ale' of Hebrew origin (4317); Michael, an archangel:--Michael.

This brings me to the Greek word "archaggelos" which is defined by Strong's # 743 as,

#743 said:
archaggelos ar-khang'-el-os from 757 and 32; a chief angel:--archangel

A cheif "what"? The Greek of the New Testament says an archangel is a head of angels, prince of angels or an "archANGLE". This is no different then saying a madman is a man who is crazy.

Gabriel IS an archangel.

FreeinChrist said:
Now there has been a position among Christians who beleive in the Trinity that "Michael the Archangel" is preIncarnate Christ, and that "The Angel of the Lord" is preIncarnate Christ. The position uses the term "angel" in the broadest sense - that of a "messenger", and NOT a created being like the angelic host. Please see this site: MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL ..... JESUS?

That was nice, you sent me to a Seventh-day Adventist apologist's website. Back in the day I got to chat with Mike a couple of times when I was running around with Mario Derkson. I did read his take on the Trinity. His apology for Michael the archangel is a spot-on for the apology offered by the Jehovah's Witnesses in their attempt to prove that Michael is Christ.

FreeinChrist said:
From what I have read, that seems to be the position of Ellen White - a position which you are misstating which even I, a nonSDA member who does not believe that Michael is the name for preIncarnate Christ, can see.

I mean no offense when I say you have not read enough. I am not misstating Ellen White. I do appreciate however the unswerving loyalty you've shown toward her defense. How about we let Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church state it?

Review and Sabath Herald said:
Question to the Editor: Will you please favor me with those Scriptures which plainly say that Christ is a created being?

Answer: You are mistaken in supposing that S.D. Adventists teach that Christ was ever created. They believe, on the contrary, that he was "begotten" of the Father, and that he can properly be called God and worshiped as such. They believe also that the worlds and everything which is, was created by Christ in conjunction with the Father. They believe, HOWEVER, that somewhere in the eternal ages of the past there was a point at which CHRIST CAME INTO EXISTENCE. They think that it is necessary that GOD SHOULD HAVE ANTEDATED CHRIST IN HIS BEING, in order that Christ could have been begotten of Him, and sustain to him the relationship of son. They hold to the distinct personality of the Father and Son rejecting as absurd that feature of Trinitarianism which insists that God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are three persons and yet one person. S.D. Adventists hold that God and Christ are one in the sense that Christ prayed that his disciples might be one i.e. one in spirit, purpose and labor. See Fundamental Principles of S.D. Adventists, Published at this office, available for 4 cents.

Ellen White said:
Wonderful statement! The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. THEY ARE ONE IN PURPOSE, IN MIND, IN CHARACTER BUT NOT IN PERSON. IT IS THUS THAT GOD AND CHRIST ARE ONE.

Review and Sabbath Herald said:
Even the angels of God have all had beginning of days, so that they would be as much excluded by this language as the members of the human family. And as to the Son of God, he would be excluded also, for he had God for his Father, and did, at some point in the eternity of the past, have beginning of days. So that if we use Paul's language in an absolute sense, it would be impossible to find but one being in the universe, and that is God the Father, who is without father, or mother, or descent, or beginning of days, or end of life.

That's almost 20 years between the same "understandings". And should you think this is some type of glitch there is a mountain more, well after 1869 just waiting for viewing.

I printed the RH directly out of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist Archives. Again, I do not misstate Ellen. I've done my homework.

Please, do me a favor, print out this post and take it to your Baptist clergy and have him test the things I've said - be sure to post the findings right here.

honorthesabbath · Jun 15, 2009

Easton bible dictionary give us this definition of ‘archangel’..( the prince of the angels.)

Strongs Exhaustive this one.. (chief of the angels)

Lets look at the Hebrew breakdown of the word, arch-angel. (Keep in mind I am NOT a Hebrew scholar).

Arch-
Archangel-Strongs-743
743-aryeh-see738
ariy (ar ee)=a young lion + pierced
739-ariel (are e ale)=lion of God,heroic-lionlike man

Notice that the break-down of arch is ariy—which means a young LION and the word PIERCED!

The ONLY name ever attached to the word of THE Archangel (not an) is Michael.

Michael=He is who like God

Put those two definitions together and you have this…

Michael the Archangel=He who is like God, was a pierced lion-like man. Jesus was called “The Lion of the Tribe of Judah”

I would think that this is a pretty compelling argument, along with the two bible texts that refer to Michael THE Archangel as being another title for Jesus.

I have always found it amusing that throughout the bible Jesus is given many different names (titles), He is the ROCK, the BREAD, the LAMB, the LIVING WATER, etc., but let someone refer to Him as the Commander of the Angels, and people go ballistic. WHY? Of all the other titles, being a Divine Messengers is the least offensive, at least it’s close to be human, not like a rock or a loaf of bread!

Pythons · Jun 15, 2009

honorthesabbath said:
Easton bible dictionary give us this definition of archangel..( the prince of the angels.)

Easton's states of Michael,

Easton said:
Who is like God?
(1.) The title given to ONE OF the chief angels (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1). He had special charge of Israel as a nation. He disputed with Satan (Jude 1:9) about the body of Moses. He is also represented as warning against "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world" (Revelation 12:7-9).

Where is the definate article here?

HTS said:
Strongs Exhaustive this one.. (chief of the angels)

Lets look at the Hebrew breakdown of the word, arch-angel. (Keep in mind I am NOT a Hebrew scholar).

Arch-
Archangel-Strongs-743
743-aryeh-see738
ariy (ar ee)=a young lion + pierced
739-ariel (are e ale)=lion of God,heroic-lionlike man

Notice that the break-down of arch is ariywhich means a young LION and the word PIERCED!

The ONLY name ever attached to the word of THE (not an) is Michael.

Michael=He is who like God

Put those two definitions together and you have this

Michael the Archangel=He who is like God, was a pierced lion-like man. Jesus was called The Lion of the Tribe of Judah

Strong's 738 issues from #717 which is only taken in the sense of "violence". In any event the definite article identifies "archangle" which the only meaning is,

1403 said:
Gabriy'el gab-ree-ale' from 1397 and 410; man of God; Gabriel, an archangel:--Garbriel

4317 said:
Miyka'el me-kaw-ale' from 4310 and (the prefix derivative from) 3588 and 410; who (is) like God?; Mikael, the name of an archangel and of nine Israelites:--Michael

traces to 352 said:
'ayil ah'-yil from the same as 193; properly, strength; hence, anything strong; specifically a chief (politically); also a ram (from his strength); a pilaster (as a strong support); an oak or other strong tree:--mighty (man), lintel, oak, post, ram, tree.

HTS said:
I would think that this is a pretty compelling argument, along with the two bible texts that refer to Michael THE Archangel as being another title for Jesus.

I'm not seeing that.

HTS said:
I have always found it amusing that throughout the bible Jesus is given many different names (titles), He is the ROCK, the BREAD, the LAMB, the LIVING WATER, etc., but let someone refer to Him as the Commander of the Angels, and people go ballistic. WHY? Of all the other titles, being a Divine Messengers is the least offensive, at least its close to be human, not like a rock or a loaf of bread!

I have no issue with Jesus "commanding" angels, as God He can do anything. "arch" is a classification OF angel. Both Easton and Strong's state Gabriel is an archangle and Ellen White specifically stated that Satan "was" an archangle. Now Ellen was also specific that Satan didn't loose any of his power after he was thrown out of heaven SO Satan would still have the power of Gabriel ONLY without the backup of God like Gabriel has. This is the first thing that pops up at me on why people go ballistic.

Thanks for posting. You did cause me to think of something I had not previously thought of.

FreeinChrist · Jun 15, 2009

Pythons said:
Ellen White stated that Lucifer was A) once an archangel B) a covering cherub C) stood next to God and D) was highly exalted. My argument proves, without a doubt, that according to Ellen White, Lucifer was an archangel. As in Lucifer the archangel which sounds very similar to Michael the archangel, Gabriel the archangel, etc.

Originally Posted by Luke 1,19

And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Originally Posted by Ellen White, Lucifer's proximity to God

Sin originated with him who, next to Christ, had been most honored of God and was highest in power and glory among the inhabitants of heaven. Lucifer, "son of the morning," was first of the covering cherubs, holy and undefiled. He stood in the presence of the great Creator

Ezekiel 28 (NASB):
12"Son of man, (L)take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord GOD,
"You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13"You were in (M)Eden, the garden of God;
(N)Every precious stone was your covering:
The (O)ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your (P)settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
14"You were the (Q)anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there
You were on the holy (R)mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the (S)stones of fire.
15"You were (T)blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until (U)unrighteousness was found in you.
16"By the (V)abundance of your trade
You were internally (W)filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17"Your heart was lifted up because of your (X)beauty;
You (Y)corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor
I cast you to the ground;
I put you before (Z)kings,
That they may see you.
18"By the multitude of your iniquities,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought (AA)fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to (AB)ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19"All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become (AC)terrified
And you will cease to be (AD)forever."'"

The anointed cherub who covers - check out the Ark of the Covenant - the covering cherubs were at the mercy seat of God.

Isaiah 14:12:
12"How you have (O)fallen from heaven,
O (P)star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
13"But you said in your heart,
'I will (Q)ascend to heaven;
I will (R)raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
14'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
(S)I will make myself like the Most High.'
15"Nevertheless you (T)will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit.
16"Those who see you will gaze at you,
They will ponder over you, saying,
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17Who made the world like a (U)wilderness
And overthrew its cities,
Who (V)did not allow his prisoners to go home?'

Seems that Eleen calling Lucifer a covering cherub and such aligns with scripture.

And it seems the Catholic Catechism also agrees that sin entered the world through Satan:

2852 "A murderer from the beginning, . . . a liar and the father of lies," Satan is "the deceiver of the whole world." Through him sin and death entered the world and by his definitive defeat all creation will be "freed from the corruption of sin and death."

You wrote:

Therefore, if Ellen states that Satan once stood in the presence of God and he was an archangel then Gabriel, who Sacred Scripture states stands in the presence of God is an archangel. As a Baptist I would assume you are familiar with Strong's #1043

This brings me to the Greek word "archaggelos" which is defined by Strong's # 743 as,

A cheif "what"? The Greek of the New Testament says an archangel is a head of angels, prince of angels or an "archANGLE". This is no different then saying a madman is a man who is crazy.

Gabriel IS an archangel.

Yep, I am familiar with Strongs. And I am also familiar with scripture.

And I see a difference between "an angel of the Lord" and "the Angel of the Lord". There is a difference between the Angel of the Lord in Exodus and the burning bush, and an angel of the Lord sent such ad Gabriel.
And there is a difference between prince and Prince of princes.
And a difference between archangel and the archangel...but it needs to be read in context in light of the whole message.

That was nice, you sent me to a Seventh-day Adventist apologist's website. Back in the day I got to chat with Mike a couple of times when I was running around with Mario Derkson. I did read his take on the Trinity. His apology for Michael the archangel is a spot-on for the apology offered by the Jehovah's Witnesses in their attempt to prove that Michael is Christ.

Not the same as jehovah Witnesses as they deny the eternal preexistence of Christ's diety and deny that He is oe essence with the Father. To them, Jesus is created from an angel and is "a god". That is different from the quote of Ellen's above and from the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA.

Let's stay away from trying to question whether the SDA are Trinitarian or not, Pythons. And please do not try to align them with nonTrinitarians in your effort here to criticize Ellen White. The TOPIC is about Michael the Archangel'
BTW The quotes you are using Pythons are from 1869 and 1183 - yet comments by EGW in the 1900's support the view that Christ always was, and is the Second Person of a Godhead of 3 Pesons who are one

I mean no offense when I say you have not read enough. I am not misstating Ellen White. I do appreciate however the unswerving loyalty you've shown toward her defense.

I do not regard her positively, but what I see in your posts is a bias against her - it is not objective at all. You are exSDA and here to proselytze folks from the SDA church - that in itself colors your understanding of what she writes.
You wrote:

How about we let Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church state it?

Wonderful statement! The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. THEY ARE ONE IN PURPOSE, IN MIND, IN CHARACTER BUT NOT IN PERSON. IT IS THUS THAT GOD AND CHRIST ARE ONE

Click to expand...

And doesn't the Catholic Church view Christ as the Second Person in the Trinity? That there are 3 Persons, one essence?
Hasn't EW stated that the Holy Spirit was the thrid Person of the Godhead? That in Christ is the fullness of God?

The topic is NOT about whether the SDA are Trinitarian so please steer away from that.

Please, do me a favor, print out this post and take it to your Baptist clergy and have him test the things I've said - be sure to post the findings right here.

I don't need to run to the pastor - I have been studying stuff like this for decades.
While I personally do not view Michael the Archangel as a name of preIncarnate Christ, I do believe there are Christophanies in the OT where He is called the Angel of the Lord. The burning bush is one instance.

But that is not why I am posting. My goal is to keep this away from questioning the Trinitarianism of the SDA and away from rule violations.

honorthesabbath · Jun 15, 2009

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Above are the ONLY 2 references in the WHOLE of the bible that mention the word 'archangel'. It is mentioned NO OTHER PLACE.

Two important things stand out in these texts.

1. The definate article "THE" is used BOTH times, never the indefinate article 'AN'.

2. The ONLY name attached to the archangel is Michael.

So using the bible and the bible only, two things we know positively about this topic.

1. There is only ONE archangel.

2. And His name is Michael.

And Pythons--where does EGW say that satan was an archangel?

Pythons · Jun 15, 2009

honorthesabbath said:
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Christ coming down from heaven with "the voice of the archangel" does not make Christ an archangel anymore then Christ coming down from heaven "with the trump of God" makes Christ a trumpet. Christ is God therefore, as Royalty His coming will be "announced".

HTS said:
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

The text says that Michael "contended" with the devil and the only applicable meaning to that word is,

Strong's #1252 said:
to separate one's self in a hostile spirit, to oppose, strive with dispute, contend

HTS said:
important things stand out in these texts.

1. The definate article "THE" is used BOTH times, never the indefinate article 'AN'.

2. The ONLY name attached to the archangel is Michael.

So using the bible and the bible only, two things we know positively about this topic.

1. There is only ONE archangel.

2. And His name is Michael.

To "paraphrase", Michael argued with Satan about the body of Moses. Most importantly, Michael DARED NOT to give Satan a railing accusation. Let's look at 2 Peter again,

2 Peter 11 said:
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Notice the definate article "before THE Lord". If, as you claim, the definate article 'The' archangel supports that Michael is Christ, the same definate article showing 'The' Lord removes the possibility that Michael is Christ because that would force an interpretation that Christ is not 'The' Lord but "a" Lord. As for "Kyrios"

Strong's #2962 said:
This title is given to God, The Messiah

Satan, by the way, IS a dignity. In the order of fallen angels he is top dog.

HTS said:
And Pythons--where does EGW say that satan was an archangel?

She did in September 14, 1882 in The Signs of the Times. Go to the Ellen White Estate search engine, full text search and type "the fact he was an archangel" (use paraenthesis " ")

Actual Quote said:
Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that HE WAS AN ARCHANGEL, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven. There was not the shadow of justification or excuse for disaffection; but envy and jealousy, once cherished, gained a power that paralyzed reason and destroyed honor and loyalty. As the result, Satan and all his sympathizers were cast out of Heaven

FreeinChrist has asked some very good questions of me however due to work load I will have to pick up on those this evening.

God bless

honorthesabbath · Jun 15, 2009

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

In this text we see that the VOICE of the Archangel awakens the sleeping saints (the dead in Christ rise first), a trumpet in the bible was used as a 'gathering' sound,Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds,..

Just as we see in Jude, here is a resurrection from the dead (Moses was dead, but about to be resurrected), but by an 'angel'? Or by He who told Martha, "I AM the RESURRECTION"?.
Ordinary angels have no power to resurrect anyone. Neither do witches (Endor).

So if we believe that this 'voice' of THE archangel is anyone but Jesus, then we are going to have to admit Jesus isn't the only RESURRECTION.

Pythons, you are correct, EGW said satan was AN archangel, and I must, for the first time in my life, disagree with her on this. From my personal studies on the archangel, the bible ever only mentions ONE name with archangel and only mentions it twice in all of scripture. I'll stand on my opinion on this matter.

Pythons · Jun 15, 2009

honorthesabbath said:
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Would you consider this could be simply a euphemism?

Numbers 23 said:
He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them

Ps 47 said:
God is gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet

Zech 4 said:
Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.

HTS said:
In this text we see that the VOICE of the Archangel awakens the sleeping saints (the dead in Christ rise first), a trumpet in the bible was used as a 'gathering' sound,Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds,..

Just as we see in Jude, here is a resurrection from the dead (Moses was dead, but about to be resurrected), but by an 'angel'? Or by He who told Martha, "I AM the RESURRECTION"?.
Ordinary angels have no power to resurrect anyone. Neither do witches (Endor).

Here is an example,

Acts 9 said:
And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.

And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them.

Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.

A man is made a little less then an angel so it seems reasonable that if Peter could raise the dead by the power of God then an angel should be able to do it by the power of God.

HTS said:
So if we believe that this 'voice' of THE archangel is anyone but Jesus, then we are going to have to admit Jesus isn't the only RESURRECTION.

I'm not following that, I'm not sure what you mean.

HTS said:
Pythons, you are correct, EGW said satan was AN archangel, and I must, for the first time in my life, disagree with her on this. From my personal studies on the archangel, the bible ever only mentions ONE name with archangel and only mentions it twice in all of scripture. I'll stand on my opinion on this matter.

God Bless you. You will not see me bring this up, to you, again. Pray for me Sister. I've got to go to work on FreeinChrist's post.

Pythons · Jun 16, 2009

FreeinChrist said:
The anointed cherub who covers - check out the Ark of the Covenant - the covering cherubs were at the mercy seat of God.

The mercy seat was in the presence of God. Gabriel stood in the presence of God.

FreeinChrist said:
Seems that Eleen calling Lucifer a covering cherub and such aligns with scripture.

And it seems the Catholic Catechism also agrees that sin entered the world through Satan:

I agree, Ellen's statements on Lucifer being a cherub aligns with what I understand about the Scriptures. I would obviously agree with the Cathechism.

FreeinChrist said:
And I see a difference between "an angel of the Lord" and "the Angel of the Lord". There is a difference between the Angel of the Lord in Exodus and the burning bush, and an angel of the Lord sent such ad Gabriel.
And there is a difference between prince and Prince of princes.
And a difference between archangel and the archangel...but it needs to be read in context in light of the whole message.

Would you say that the following Scripture is speaking OF the one following it?

2 Peter 2 said:
Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Jude 9 said:
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee

In Jude 9 Michael "the" archangel defers giving the devil a railing accusation, to Messiah. The Greek is clear in that the definate article identifies Jesus Christ as being the third word from the end of the sentence.

"THE" [definite article] Lord [Kyrios] rebuke thee. Strong's states that Kyrios is a title given to God, the Messiah. If I were to paraphrase Jude 9 like you suggest as possible it would go like,

paraphrase said:
Yet Christ, when He was contending and arguing with the devil over the body of Moses did not dare to give the devil a harsh word but instead said that the Messiah would rebuke the devil at a later time.

Another proof that the definate article argument fails to support, and is actually against Michael being Christ is found in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 1 v. 18

Solid proof that Christ ISN't Michael said:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found WITH CHILD of the Holy Ghost.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
But while he thought on these things, behold, THE angel OF the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

That's not "an" angel of the Lord, that's THE angel of the Lord. The "Son" was already Incarnate within the Blessed Virgin. Can you imagine the translation that makes? I can call it a paraphrase only of what Ellen White has suggested.

God forgive me for doing this said:
"The" angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Joseph, the son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife because I know how tough Mom would have it being a Jew and all without a husband and I'm going to be going through enough already with the work the Father has given me, so stick in there champ.

Horrific to be sure.

FreeinChrist said:
Not the same as jehovah Witnesses as they deny the eternal preexistence of Christ's diety and deny that He is oe essence with the Father. To them, Jesus is created from an angel and is "a god". That is different from the quote of Ellen's above and from the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA.

Both systems understand that "God" antedated Christ with one believing that Christ was created while the other believes Christ was begotten. Ellen clearly said in the quote I provided that Jesus was ONE with God in the exact same way Jesus was ONE with His disciples.

I would agree with you that the stated Fundamental Beliefs of the Church
does not agree with what Ellen said.

FreeinChrist said:
Let's stay away from trying to question whether the SDA are Trinitarian or not, Pythons. And please do not try to align them with nonTrinitarians in your effort here to criticize Ellen White. The TOPIC is about Michael the Archangel'

My concern at this time is indeed Michael the archangel. I don't mean to criticize Ellen I'm only being critical of some of her teachings. I would certainly agree she got many things right.

FreeinChrist said:
BTW The quotes you are using Pythons are from 1869 and 1183 - yet comments by EGW in the 1900's support the view that Christ always was, and is the Second Person of a Godhead of 3 Pesons who are one

Should you care to have a private discussion there is no doubt that you will end up in total agreement with me. The quotes I gave you are literally the first inch of a massive mountain. Ellen retained the 'begotten' understanding to the grave however I will leave it at that and wait for your pm.

FreeinChrist said:
I do not regard her positively, but what I see in your posts is a bias against her - it is not objective at all. You are exSDA and here to proselytze folks from the SDA church - that in itself colors your understanding of what she writes.

exSDA? When was that?

FreeinChrist said:
And doesn't the Catholic Church view Christ as the Second Person in the Trinity? That there are 3 Persons, one essence?
Hasn't EW stated that the Holy Spirit was the thrid Person of the Godhead? That in Christ is the fullness of God?

I thought you said that you wanted me to steer clear of the Trinity? Is this bait? I will be happy to prove to you everything about the Trinity and Ellen White in private conversation. I am more then ready. Can I do this in General Theology or is that a no no given that CF views Ellen White as a solid Trinitarian?

Freeinchrist said:
I don't need to run to the pastor - I have been studying stuff like this for decades.

While I personally do not view Michael the Archangel as a name of preIncarnate Christ, I do believe there are Christophanies in the OT where He is called the Angel of the Lord. The burning bush is one instance.

But that is not why I am posting. My goal is to keep this away from questioning the Trinitarianism of the SDA and away from rule violations.

How many angels of the Lord do you believe there is? I assumed you understood there to be only one ( "The angel of the Lord" ), given your posting. I was also under the understanding that you attend SDA worship services as well as Baptist. Do I have this wrong?

Stryder06 · Jun 16, 2009

Just a side comment that I've been considering. Ever think that the term arch-angel could be used to describe the lead or head angel(s) in heaven? I ask this because it would make some since in trying to resolve "conflict" between the bible and sr white.

I figure it like this, if the term is simply used to refer to the lead angels in heaven, than of course there could be multiple arch-angels, with Christ being The Archangel about all others, this term used more so to describe His position of authority.

I still believe that Michael is Christ, but I figured i'd just throw this out as food for thought to see what the rest of you might think.

Pythons · Jun 16, 2009

Stryder06 said:
Just a side comment that I've been considering. Ever think that the term arch-angel could be used to describe the lead or head angel(s) in heaven? I ask this because it would make some since in trying to resolve "conflict" between the bible and sr white.

That's the problem, "angel of the Lord", when used with the definite article, precludes the possibility of their being other archangels OTHERWISE Christ would be an "angel".

Stryder said:
I figure it like this, if the term is simply used to refer to the lead angels in heaven, than of course there could be multiple arch-angels, with Christ being The Archangel about all others, this term used more so to describe His position of authority.

I still believe that Michael is Christ, but I figured i'd just throw this out as food for thought to see what the rest of you might think.

Look, I believe there are more then 3 archangels however I find it Biblically impossible to declare that Christ was one of them.

Stryder06 · Jun 16, 2009

Pythons said:
That's the problem, "angel of the Lord", when used with the definite article, precludes the possibility of their being other archangels OTHERWISE Christ would be an "angel".

I wasn't talking about the angel of the Lord. That phrase is used several times in the OT. Sometimes it's talking about Christ, other times it's talking about an angel on errand.

Look, I believe there are more then 3 archangels however I find it Biblically impossible to declare that Christ was one of them.

Where does the bible talk about there being at least 3 of them? I'm just saying, my own theory here, that Christ being called Michael is a title.

An army can have many captains, but there is one captain that stands above all of them. I figure the same for heave. There are many angels, with many "arch-angels" (possibly just talking about title here) with Christ as the head Arch-Angel. In other words Christ is the head commander. The top Leader of the Angelic Hosts. There is no one above Michael which is why He is given that name.

Once again this is just my theory.

Pythons · Jun 16, 2009

Stryder06 said:
I wasn't talking about the angel of the Lord. That phrase is used several times in the OT. Sometimes it's talking about Christ, other times it's talking about an angel on errand.

Where does the bible talk about there being at least 3 of them? I'm just saying, my own theory here, that Christ being called Michael is a title.

An army can have many captains, but there is one captain that stands above all of them. I figure the same for heave. There are many angels, with many "arch-angels" (possibly just talking about title here) with Christ as the head Arch-Angel. In other words Christ is the head commander. The top Leader of the Angelic Hosts. There is no one above Michael which is why He is given that name.

Once again this is just my theory.

You have made my point perfectly. I would agree with you that we don't know for sure how many archangels there are ( my best guess is there is a bunch ). That's exactly why Daniel 10,13 states that Michael was ONE of the Chief PRINCE(S). Call Michael the foremost of the OTHER head chief(s) and you still end up with the same thing.

FreeinChrist · Jun 16, 2009

Pythons said:
The mercy seat was in the presence of God. Gabriel stood in the presence of God.

There are many angels around the throne of Christ, 2 that "cover". That does not make all of them archangels.

Both systems understand that "God" antedated Christ with one believing that Christ was created while the other believes Christ was begotten. Ellen clearly said in the quote I provided that Jesus was ONE with God in the exact same way Jesus was ONE with His disciples.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I don't have time to debate this stuff. I am more concerned with the direction of the discussion

exSDA? When was that?

I believe you indicated that when the SDA forum was for Traditional, Progressive and former SDA - not just everyone.

I thought you said that you wanted me to steer clear of the Trinity? Is this bait? I will be happy to prove to you everything about the Trinity and Ellen White in private conversation. I am more then ready. Can I do this in General Theology or is that a no no given that CF views Ellen White as a solid Trinitarian?

It was not intended as bait at all. I simply should have stated it as fact and issued a MOD HAT advising strongly against entering the area of debating the Trinity or if someone is Trinitarian.

How many angels of the Lord do you believe there is? I assumed you understood there to be only one ( "The angel of the Lord" ), given your posting. I was also under the understanding that you attend SDA worship services as well as Baptist. Do I have this wrong?

God has many , many angels. Any angel sentby Him is an angel of the Lord.
However, there is ONE Angel of the Lord who has accepted worship and in the context of the scripture, is a Christophany (or Theophany if you wish). Example as I already said is the burning bush. I am hardly alone in viewing that way. Read Justin Martyr, Theophilus and Ireneaus.
Justin refers to Christ as the one in the burning bush and is the one who sent fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah, having been one of the three "angels" who visited Abraham. He uses the term "Angel" a number of times to describe Christ - and no - he was not saying that Christ was created or antedated God.. Theophilus refers to Christ as the one who walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. Irenaeus wrote along the same lines. They are not saying Christ is created or that He antedated God either.

See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxv.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxvi.html

And no, I do not attend SDA worship services and am not SDA, nor was I ever SDA.

FreeinChrist · Jun 16, 2009

Pythons said:
That's the problem, "angel of the Lord", when used with the definite article, precludes the possibility of their being other archangels OTHERWISE Christ would be an "angel".

Look, I believe there are more then 3 archangels however I find it Biblically impossible to declare that Christ was one of them.

Last note for now:

I am unable to Biblicaly support there being any archangel besides Michael. Gabriel stood in the presence of God but is not described as "archangel"

And other angels are in the presence of God as well:
Psalm 68:17 (King James Version)

17The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.

Matthew 18:10 (King James Version)

10Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Revelation 5:11 (King James Version)

11And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

Being in the presence of God does not make an angel a archangel. You seem to think it does.

Pythons · Jun 17, 2009

FreeinChrist said:
There are many angels around the throne of Christ, 2 that "cover". That does not make all of them archangels.

Ok, I can accept that and would agree with you.

pythons said:
Both systems understand that "God" antedated Christ with one believing that Christ was created while the other believes Christ was begotten. Ellen clearly said in the quote I provided that Jesus was ONE with God in the exact same way Jesus was ONE with His disciples

FreeinChrist quotes John 3 said:
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Yes, like I said, "begotten" was understood very differently by Ellen,

Ellen White said:
“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind)

And,

[quote=Ellen White, Youth's instructor Dec 16 1897 part 1]
As the disciples comprehended it, as their perception took hold of God's divine compassion, they realized that there is a sense in which the sufferings of the Son were the sufferings of the Father. From eternity there was a complete unity between the Father and the Son. They were two, yet little short of being identical; two in individuality, yet one in spirit, and heart, and character
[/quote]

Ellen White said:
The One APPOINTED in the counsels of heaven came to the earth as an instructor. He was no less a being than the Creator of the world, the Son of the "Infinite God".

There's God and there's Infinite God. "They were TWO, yet little short of being Identical".

FreeinChrist said:
I don't have time to debate this stuff. I am more concerned with the direction of the discussion

Ahhh, it wouldn't be a debate. But ok, I'll follow your lead here.

FreeinChrist said:
I believe you indicated that when the SDA forum was for Traditional, Progressive and former SDA - not just everyone.

I believe you have got me mixed up with someone else. It's ok.

FreeinChrist said:
It was not intended as bait at all. I simply should have stated it as fact and issued a MOD HAT advising strongly against entering the area of debating the Trinity or if someone is Trinitarian.

This thread isn't about the Trinity in my view, it's about what it takes theologically to proudly boast Christ is Michael the archangel.

FreeinChrist said:
God has many , many angels. Any angel sentby Him is an angel of the Lord.
However, there is ONE Angel of the Lord who has accepted worship and in the context of the scripture, is a Christophany (or Theophany if you wish). Example as I already said is the burning bush. I am hardly alone in viewing that way. Read Justin Martyr, Theophilus and Ireneaus.

I've read those you've mentioned, where do they tie any Theophany to indicate Michael the Archangle is God? You are claiming you do not believe Michael the archangle is a preIncarnate name for Christ yet are defending the premise for it? How can you, at the same time, accept the same premise you reject? By the way, where does Michael the archangel accept worship? We are still talking about the possibility that Michael the archangel is also Christ, right?

While I certainly believe in Theop's "an" angel of the Lord can be God Himself,

Judges 2 said:
And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

Judges 6 said:
And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas, O LORD God! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face.

And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.

Judges 13 said:
Then Manoah knew that he was AN angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

2 Sam 24 said:
And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

Zech 12 said:
Then the angel of the LORD answered and said, O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?

And the LORD answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words.
So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.

FreeinChrist said:
Justin refers to Christ as the one in the burning bush and is the one who sent fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah, having been one of the three "angels" who visited Abraham. He uses the term "Angel" a number of times to describe Christ - and no - he was not saying that Christ was created or antedated God.. Theophilus refers to Christ as the one who walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. Irenaeus wrote along the same lines. They are not saying Christ is created or that He antedated God either.

I was very clear in identifying WHO and WHAT group (s) taught and still teach God antedated Christ and the Fathers of the Catholic Church were not a part of the identification.

FreeinChrist said:
And no, I do not attend SDA worship services and am not SDA, nor was I ever SDA.

That is strange, I thought your profile once stated you were visiting various Baptist and Adventist denominations. Now it looks like it is me that had you mixed up with somone else.

FreeinChrist said:
I am unable to Biblicaly support there being any archangel besides Michael. Gabriel stood in the presence of God but is not described as "archangel"

I see Biblical support in Daniel 10, 13 which says,

Michael is ONE OF MORE said:
but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me

Speaking of definite article arguments there is one right in front of CHIEF PRINCES, as in Michael is "one of " OR "foremost of" definate article THE Chief princes (that's a plural ). I read that as Michael is the head archangel.

FreeinChrist said:
Being in the presence of God does not make an angel a archangel. You seem to think it does

If the archangel Michael is one of OR "foremost" OF the OTHER chief princes then Michael is not unique other then ranking within whatever those princes are. What do you think they are?

By the way I have to say I agree with you taste of movies.

How can the two be the same?

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Check the signature

Well-Known Member

Check the signature

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency