Jesus = Michael?

[SabbathBlessings]

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.

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.

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-

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

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."

Already addressed

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.

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.

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

Already addressed

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.

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.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

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.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

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.

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.

 

[JulieB67]

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

He certainly would. That is why he is described as Prince and not prince. And Michael is described as "one of the chief princes" Meaning there is more than one -lower case chief prince.

Already addressed

Not really, no.

otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't. That's the point. The verse clearly states that Michael is but one of the chief princes. Meaning there is more than one chief prince. This one verse alone describes who Michael is and therefore should wipe any doubt out that he is not Christ. After that, one is grasping.

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.

Again, it all happens simultaneously, Christ with a shout, the voice of the angel and the trump of God. Unless you don't believe that we are talking about the seventh angel whose voice begins to sound. If that's the case, that's another subject altogether...

 

[SabbathBlessings]

He certainly would. But Michael is described as "one of the chief princes" Meaning there is more than one -lower case chief prince.
Of course it doesn't. That's the point. The verse clearly states that Michael is but one of the chief princes. Meaning there is more than one chief prince. This one verse alone describes who Michael is and therefore should wipe any doubt out that he is not Christ. After that, one is grasping.

Already addressed. You keep repeating what already has been addressed.

Again, it all happens simultaneously, Christ with a shout, the voice of the angel and the trump of God. Unless you don't believe that we are talking about the seventh angel whose voice begins to sound. If that's the case, that's another subject altogether...

No, it says its the voice of Jesus John 5:28-29 who raises the dead than it says the voice of the Archangel that does.

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

You still haven't answered the question, if Jesus is called a prince why would He not be the chief Prince?

 

[Hentenza]

Who said Jesus is a mere prince?

Michael is a mere prince not the creator of everything there is.

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?

Because a chief means a hierarchy where bring a chief of princes still means that He is a prince. The sense in which Jesus is called a prince doesn’t equate to Jesus being Michael. Jesus is called by name while Michael is called by name.

Is there anyone above Him? Not in my view.

Yep. God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

SabbathBlessings said:
Is there anyone above Him? Not in my view.

Yep. God.

God is above Jesus and not equal to or One of the same?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Michael is a mere prince not the creator of everything there is.

Because a chief means a hierarchy where bring a chief of princes still means that He is a prince. The sense in which Jesus is called a prince doesn’t equate to Jesus being Michael. Jesus is called by name while Michael is called by name.

There was more than this, but that's okay, it doesn't matter to me if you agree or not, we don't on most things so what's one more.

Yep. God.

SabbathBlessings said:
Is there anyone above Him? Not in my view.

Yep. God.

God is above Jesus and not equal to or One of the same?

 

[JulieB67]

You still haven't answered the question, if Jesus is called a prince why would He not be the chief Prince?

As you love to state -already addressed. Jesus is called Prince, not "one of the chief princes (lower case) -plural. Which is what Michael is called. You keep glossing over this fact. One of the chief princes -plural. Breaking it down -there are chief princes and Michael is one of them. It's that simple.

You don't see the distinction and therefore that's where we disagree.

Christ is not an angel. Which is what an archangel (lowercase) is. Break it down in the greek. It is a chief angel. And we know from Daniel there are more than one. You keep going back to the word "prince" but an archangel is still an angel. And we know Christ is not an angel.

1. a chief angel

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
archangel.
From archo and aggelos; a chief angel -- archangel.

see GREEK archo

see GREEK aggelos

See the words it is derived from.

It boils down to chief angel and that goes back to the fact that there there is more than one. It does not refer to the Prince of princes which is Christ. He is the ONE and only in that distinction.

No, it says its the voice of Jesus John 5:28-29 who raises the dead than it says the voice of the Archangel that does.

You have not proven that those 3 things do not happen simultaneously. Christ returns with a shout, with the voice of the archangel (a chief angel in the Greek) and the trump of God.

Revelation 10:7 "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

If you don't believe this is the same event, then yes that's a different subject altogether. I happen to believe the 7th trump is that last (farthest out in the Greek )and is the trump of God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

As you love to state -already addressed. Jesus is called Prince, not "one of the chief princes (lower case)

Again translators make the punctuations its not in the original manuscripts

You don't see the distinction and therefore that's where we disagree.

You don't even understand our position, and trying to make it about something we do not believe.

Christ is not an angel.

Christ is not a created-being. He is the Lord of lord, Prince of princes and King of kings, from everlasting to everlasting.

Which is what an archangel (lowercase) is. Break it down in the greek. It is a chief angel. And we know from Daniel there are more than one.

1. a chief angel

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
archangel.
From archo and aggelos; a chief angel -- archangel.

see GREEK archo

see GREEK aggelos

See the words it is derived from.

So again, if Jesus is a Prince why would He not be the Chief Prince? A question you have yet to answer. Why would a created being be a chief over Jesus Himself.

You have not proven that those 3 things do not happen simultaneously. Christ returns with a shout, with the voice of the archangel (an angel) and the trump of God.

Revelation 10:7 "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

This doesn't say anything about the angel raising the dead, it says plainly he sounded the trumpet, so making arguments no one is making.

If you don't believe this is the same event, then yes that's a different subject altogether.

Its the same event, why would Jesus needs an angel's voice to raise the dead when He said its His voice= because its the same. The Archangel is not an angel its a Title.

I happen to believe the 7th trump is that last (farthest out in the Greek )and is the trump of God.

You're free to believe anything you like.

 

[JulieB67]

So again, if Jesus is a Prince why would He not be the Chief Prince? A question you have yet to answer. Why would a created being be a chief over Jesus Himself.

I have answered but you keep reverting back. This is about Michael being called one of the chief princes. Lowercase, though. Meaning Michael is a chief over other angels, not Christ. We're talking rank. Archangel means chief angel.

That's why it can be said Michael and his angels"....

That's what archangel means when you break it down in the Greek -a chief angel. Are we really going to change what the Greek means?

So this could not be referring to Christ whatsoever. And Christ is called Prince. He's never called a prince. And he's certainly not referred to as one of the chief princes. Again, you keep glossing over the fact we are talking about chief princes -plural

Jude makes the distinction-

Jude 1 "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called

Jude 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."

Clearly two different entities- One is Christ, one the other is an angel.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You keep reverting back. This is about Michael being called one of the chief princes. Lowercase, though.

How many times is him referring to God not capitalize in many different translations? You know the translators makes those decision, no punctuation is the original manuscripts.

Meaning Michael is a chief over other angels, not Christ.

That's why it can be said Michael and his angels"....

That's what archangel means when you break it down in the Greek -a chief angel. Are we really going to change what the Greek means?

So this could not be referring to Christ whatsoever. And Christ is called Prince. He's never called a prince. And he's certainly not referred to as one of the chief princes. Again, you keep glossing over the fact we are talking about chief princes -plural

No, not changing the Greek. The question is not what archangel means, but who bears the title.

Yes, ἀρχάγγελος (archangelos) literally means "chief angel" or "chief messenger." Which is a Title.

Titles often describe authority over a group without making the person part of that group. For example, a king can be called "captain of the army" without being merely a soldier. So the meaning of archangel alone does not settle whether Michael is a created angel or Christ. We do not believe Jesus Christ is a created angel, so to even insinuate this is not being honest with our view.

Regarding Daniel 10:13, the phrase "one of the chief princes", the Hebrew is 'echad ha-sarim ha-rishonim', literally "one of the first/chief princes." The phrase can mean "one among the foremost princes" rather than necessarily "one among a class of equals." The emphasis is on rank.

More importantly, the book of Daniel presents Michael in a unique role:

Michael is the heavenly Prince of God's people Daniel 10:21
Michael stands up to deliver God's people in the time of trouble once probation closes Dan 12:1
Michael leads the armies of heaven against Satan Revelation 12:7
Michael voice raises the dead 1 Thessalonians 4:16 which voice is Jesus Christ John 5:28-29

You keep focusing on the word, do you apply that to Jesus being the bread of life, Is Jesus literal bread? Or a literal rock, or a literal vine? Jesus goes by many Titles in Scripture, we believe this is just another Title He goes by. You don't have to agree, I am OK with that. Its not one of our fundamental beliefs, but its a belief that many Reformers came to the same conclusion.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Many Reformers believe that Michael the Archangel is another Title for Jesus Christ, this is not unique to SDA's.

 

[JulieB67]

You don't have to agree, I will not lose sleep over it.

Nor will I.

 

[JulieB67]

Many Reformers believe

I'm not swayed by numbers or even a majority when it comes to what men believe. I'll take God's Word over man's any day. It's part of the reason I left my church. Too many false doctrines.

But we can certainly agree to disagree.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I'm not swayed by numbers or even a majority when it comes to what men believe. I'll take God's Word over man's any day. It's part of the reason I left my church. Too many false doctrines.

But we can certainly agree to disagree.

We certainly do not believe as the majority, so not sure where you’re getting that from.

I believe we should take God’s word over man’s, I believe we should fear God and keep His commandments Exo20:6 Exo20:20. Exo20:1-17 Ecc3:14 Ecc12:13-14 Rev12:6-12 over our fear of God through mans traditions following the crowd Isa 29:13 Mat15:3-14 another belief where we are in the minority.

 

[Hentenza]

SabbathBlessings said:
Is there anyone above Him? Not in my view.


God is above Jesus and not equal to or One of the same?

God and Jesus are one. God and Michael are not one.

 

[Hentenza]

Many Reformers believe that Michael the Archangel is another Title for Jesus Christ, this is not unique to SDA's.

Who cares. I’m not arguing with the SDAs or the reformers but with those that claim that Jesus is Michael in this thread. Just because someone else believes it does not make it true.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[JulieB67]

Michael voice raises the dead

I will state the Word that we have never states that.

We have Christ coming with a shout. That is biblical. So he is voicing a command which would certainly line up with John 5

The voice of the archangel lines up more with Revelation 10:7

Revelation 10:7 "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

And again, we do not know for a fact that Michael is the only archangel. If we go by Daniel, we can I think safely assume he's not. He's but one as the Word states. Yes, maybe an assumption. But a much more safer assumption than assuming Michael is Christ. That's such a huge leap.

And really once again, we have Jude. Why would he separate the entities in his very short epistle? That just would simply bring confusion where I believe there is none. It makes no sense to do so.

But I'm sure we won't change either's mind. But did want to pop back on to say that it doesn't state that Michael's voice raises the dead.