Jesus = Michael?

[SabbathBlessings]

We have the Greek meaning. So we don't need a scripture to tell us that archangel is indeed an angel. Do you have scripture that it's Michael's voice that raises the dead? No.

I have previously addressed this with Scripture.

That is your own reasoning.

Just as you have no scripture that states Michael is Jesus Christ or vice versa.

I at least have scripture that points to Michael being "one of the chief princes" Meaning there is more than one. And I have the Greek meaning that archangel explicitly states that is an angel.

An angel means messenger in Greek

ἄγγελος (angelos)

"messenger"
or
"one who is sent with a message."

So no the Greek word is not a created being. It can mean that it can also mean a Title. Archangel means Chief Messenger or chief angel. It says nothing in the Greek it is a created-being.

The word simply breaks down as:


ἀρχή (archē) = chief, ruler, first, authority
ἄγγελος (angelos) = messenger

So the lexical meaning is:

chief messenger
or
chief angel


The idea of being created is not part of the word's definition.


I see you did not answer the question who is the Angel of the Lord. Why would our LORD not have a message to tell the world and why would He not be the Chief Messenger, when there is no one above Him. You are stuck that an angel can only mean a created being when the Bible plainly teaches it can also mean a Title. Jesus goes by many Titles, it doesn't make Him the literal title such a bread, rock, vine etc.

I feel like we have discussed this exact thing now a few times, if you have something new to discuss, lets chat, otherwise its best that I move on. Be well.

 

[Hentenza]

I have previously addressed this with Scripture.

An angel means messenger in Greek

ἄγγελος (angelos)

"messenger"
or
"one who is sent with a message."

So no the Greek word is not a created being. It can mean that it can also mean a Title. Archangel means Chief Messenger or chief angel. It says nothing in the Greek it is a created-being.

The word simply breaks down as:


ἀρχή (archē) = chief, ruler, first, authority
ἄγγελος (angelos) = messenger

So the lexical meaning is:

chief messenger
or
chief angel


The idea of being created is not part of the word's definition.


I see you did not answer the question who is the Angel of the Lord. Why would our LORD not have a message to tell the world and why would He not be the Chief Messenger, when there is no one above Him. You are stuck that an angel can only mean a created being when the Bible plainly teaches it can also mean a Title. Jesus goes by many Titles, it doesn't make Him the literal title such a bread, rock, vine etc.

I feel like we have discussed this exact thing now a few times, if you have something new to discuss, lets chat, otherwise its best that I move on. Be well.

Jesus is neither a messenger or the chief messenger. Jesus is God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Jesus is neither a messenger or the chief messenger. Jesus is God.

Jesus is God. But He also holds many Titles in Scripture. I think Jesus is a Great Messenger- sorry if you do not see that.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. John 6:38

Mal 3:1 “Behold, I send My messenger,
And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek,
Will suddenly come to His temple,
Even the Messenger of the covenant,
In whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

He came to reveal the Father and deliver God's message to humanity.

 

[Hentenza]

Jesus is God. But He also holds many Titles in Scripture. I think Jesus is a Great Messenger- sorry if you do not see that.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. John 6:38

Mal 3:1 “Behold, I send My messenger,
And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek,
Will suddenly come to His temple,
Even the Messenger of the covenant,
In whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

He came to reveal the Father and deliver God's message to humanity.

But the problem is that you claim that a created being is an infinite being. That can not be. In Mal. 3:1 the messenger is John the Baptist who prepares the way for the messenger of the covenant which is Jesus. The messages from a created being, John the Baptist, is not the same as the message of the new covenant. Only Jesus, as the sacrificial lamb, could usher in the new covenant. John only paved the way. Michael is at the same level of message as John. Michael did not usher in the new covenant nor is he an infinite being.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

But the problem is that you claim that a created being is an infinite being. That can not be. In Mal. 3:1 the messenger is John the Baptist who prepares the way for the messenger of the covenant which is Jesus. The messages from a created being, John the Baptist, is not the same as the message of the new covenant. Only Jesus, as the sacrificial lamb, could usher in the new covenant. John only paved the way. Michael is at the same level of message as John. Michael did not usher in the new covenant nor is he an infinite being.

Again, you do not understand the argument so will have a wrong conclusion. Mal 3 speaks not just of John.

 

[johansen]

This is just your opinion, the Archangel is a Title, its not an created angel.

Pot calling kettle..

How do we even know what an archangel is if the bible doesn't define it?

 

[Hentenza]

Again, you do not understand the argument so will have a wrong conclusion. Mal 3 speaks not just of John.

I understand the argument just fine but your argument is not well developed and assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[johansen]

It does define it and I have already provided the meaning in the original Greek.

sure, but that's not much of a supporting argument for their to be only one.

and we don't build doctrines from only one witness.
you need to find more than one prophet who said there is only one archangel, in the old testamate.

 

[Hentenza]

sure, but that's not much of a supporting argument for their to be only one.

and we don't build doctrines from only one witness.
you need to find more than one prophet who said there is only one archangel, in the old testamate.

She only has the words of her prophetess Ellen White to support her argument that Michael is Jesus.

“Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave his revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the captain of the Lord's host, Michael the Archangel.”

The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets, by Ellen G. White. Appendix. Note 7.

"<b>NOTE 7. PAGE 366.</b> That the One who spoke the law, who called Moses into the mount and talked with him, was our Lord Jesus Christ, is evident from the following considerations: Christ is the one through whom God has at all times revealed Himself to man. 'But to us there is but one God...

www.ellenwhite.info

 

[SabbathBlessings]

People believe what they want, no SDA follows EGW we follow God. Sadly another accusation that just is not true. Why most SDA's on here only quote Bible to support our position, She even says to do this. Another example of not understanding and coming to wrong conclusions.

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony."


— Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 416

"God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms."


— The Great Controversy, p. 595

"The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard."

— Evangelism, p. 256

 

[SabbathBlessings]

sure, but that's not much of a supporting argument for their to be only one.

and we don't build doctrines from only one witness.
you need to find more than one prophet who said there is only one archangel, in the old testamate.

If only people would apply this to Paul. Sadly people use Paul a servant of God, to correct the God and not the other way around and never look at all the context of his writings and can never find any other witness to support their view and ends up teaching against the very Testimony of God Himself Exo20:6 Exo31:18.

There is only one Archangel mentioned in both OT and NT. The whole Bible is one book and God's Word and will explains Itself if one allows, what God tells us to do. Isa 28:10-13 Pro3:5-6


Dan 10:13
Dan 10:21
Dan 12:1


Dan 8:25
Dan 9:25

Michael is called "your prince" and "the great prince," while Christ is called "Messiah the Prince" and "Prince of princes.". If Christ is Prince of princes why would He not be the Great Prince or your Prince? The Archangel is a Title. Jesus goes by many Titles in Scripture. We again do not believe Jesus is a created being despite people repeating that's what we believe, when we don't.

Which is consistent with the NT
Jude 1:9
1 Thess4:16

The voice of Jesus raises the dead John 5:25-29 and in 1 Thess 4:16KJV the voice is the Archangel.

 

[johansen]

The voice of Jesus raises the dead John 5:25-29 and in 1 Thess 4:16KJV the voice is the Archangel

No, it is jesus speaking with the voice of an archangel...

He usually speaks gently....

 

[Hentenza]

If only people would apply this to Paul. Sadly people use Paul a servant of God, to correct the God and not the other way around and never look at all the context of his writings and can never find any other witness to support their view and ends up teaching against the very Testimony of God Himself Exo20:6 Exo31:18.

If only people would actually read Paul as the apostle, follower of Christ, preacher of the gospel, chosen by Christ Himself, and writer of 13 books of scripture (maybe 14 if you believe that he wrote Hebrews) then you would understand that Paul does not write or correct against God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

If only people would actually read Paul as the apostle, follower of Christ, preacher of the gospel, chosen by Christ Himself, and writer of 13 books of scripture (maybe 14 if you believe that he wrote Hebrews) then you would understand that Paul does not write or correct against God.

Not sure what you’re reading, but this is not an argument I made or even what was being discussed in context. It was about having two witnesses, not that Paul didn't write Scripture or was not a follower of Jesus Christ, he was, Acts 17:2 Luke4:16 nor do I believe that Paul corrected God, but people make arguements out of context, that try to make him do so. I know this is fruitless of us trying to reason even on the smallest thing, believe as you wish, all will get sorted out in God’s time.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, it is jesus speaking with the voice of an archangel...

He usually speaks gently....

It’s all one, say nothing about a second command, its all the same context- Christ Himself, the voice of the Archangel that raises the dead, which its Jesus voice who raises the dead.

It’s OK, we don’t have to agree, it will sort itself out soon enough.

 

[Hentenza]

It’s all one, say nothing about a second command, its all the same context- Christ Himself, the voice of the Archangel that raises the dead, which its Jesus voice who raises the dead.

It’s OK, we don’t have to agree, it will sort itself out soon enough.

Post 131. You said:

“Sadly people use Paul a servant of God, to correct the God and not the other way around and never look at all the context of his writings”

Paul never corrects the God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Post 131. You said:

“Sadly people use Paul a servant of God, to correct the God and not the other way around and never look at all the context of his writings”

Paul never corrects the God.

In context to what was actually stated: people use Paul to correct God- not looking at the context of his writing, which does not say Paul corrects God. Not sure how you don’t understand the difference but I’ll leave it again agree to disagree. Best I move on.

 

[Hentenza]

In context to what was actually stated: people use Paul to correct God- not looking at the context of his writing, which does not say Paul corrects God. Not sure how you don’t understand the difference but I’ll leave it again agree to disagree. Best I move on.

I posted what you wrote. Maybe you should proof what you write before posting it.

 

[prodromos]

Best I move on.

You clearly seem unable to.