This goes back to hermeneutics.....errr how we read and interpret scripture...not a particularly easy thing to teach, so I would imagine not a very easy thing to learn...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We can???? The Lion of Judah is Jesus. Satan is compared to a roaring lion who is seeking to devour us. Exactly how is Matthew described as a Lion?MAC said:You are right, it is not easy but it is in the word of God.
We can accept Matthew as the Lion
We can accept Mark as a servant of God. Are you trying to imply more?We can accept Mark as the Servant
?? Exactly how? Luke, himself, was a human being born in original sin who needed a Saviour. If you are refering to the book of Luke as showing us Jesus as the perfect human, that would be acceptable, though it is not stated that way.We can accept Luke as the perfect Human
WHO believes John is divine and exalted? Your statement implies that some view John as exalted over other men. I'd agree that the book of John shows Jesus as exalted over men. John. himself, is not.We can accept John as an eagle, exalted and divine
So explain it. If Michael is Jesus, why did Michael dare not bring a railing judgement on Satan over the body of Moses? Why did Michael need to call on God? We learn from Hebrews that the world was made through Jesus, that Jesus is the 'exact representation of His nature', superior to angels and that Jesus 'upholds all things by the word of His power'. (Hebrews 1) Hadn't God (this includes Jesus) already made a judgment on Satan? Didn't Satan lose his place in heaven? So why would Jesus (IF Michael is Jesus) dare not bring a railing judgment on Satan over the body of Moses?but they wont accept Michael the Prince as Christ!
Wow, amazing, I always tended to believe that way. Mac, can I be your Buddy and student?MAC said:Thinking about it, yes! He is One of the chief princes. We have the Father as One of, we have the Holy Spirit as One of and Christ as One of. The whole deity is in place to me when I read "Michael, One of the chief princes"
FreeinChrist said:We can???? The Lion of Judah is Jesus. Satan is compared to a roaring lion who is seeking to devour us. Exactly how is Matthew described as a Lion?
We can accept Mark as a servant of God. Are you trying to imply more?
[
So explain it. If Michael is Jesus, why did Michael dare not bring a railing judgement on Satan over the body of Moses? Why did Michael need to call on God? We learn from Hebrews that the world was made through Jesus, that Jesus is the 'exact representation of His nature', superior to angels and that Jesus 'upholds all things by the word of His power'. (Hebrews 1) Hadn't God (this includes Jesus) already made a judgment on Satan? Didn't Satan lose his place in heaven? So why would Jesus (IF Michael is Jesus) dare not bring a railing judgment on Satan over the body of Moses?
[]
FreeinChrist,
please remember that Satan is the accuser of the Brethren and not Christ. This is the very reason it says that Michael did not bring accusation against Satan. Jesus came not condemn but to save. At the very end but, Our Lord will be the Judge.
If Michael means in place of God, then Christ's sacrifice is not merely human but divine just as He is.
>Unless God has all of your heart, the devil has a part<
danceforjoy said:Jesus came not to condemn but to save...WHO? Only mankind. There is no help for fallen angels. They face only condemnation.FreeinChrist said:[]
FreeinChrist,
please remember that Satan is the accuser of the Brethren and not Christ. This is the very reason it says that Michael did not bring accusation against Satan. Jesus came not condemn but to save. At the very end but, Our Lord will be the Judge.
If Michael means in place of God, then Christ's sacrifice is not merely human but divine just as He is.
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
The angels who fell, including Satan, are already already condemned.
So your point that Jesus came to save and not condemn makes no sense here.
1. When Michael faced Satan over the body of Moses, it was a few thousand years before Jesus came to save.
2. Satan already has been given a railing judgement by God - he lost his place in heaven as the anointed cherub who covers. Why, IF Michael is Christ, wouldn't he pronounce a railing judgment over the body? If He were Christ - aka God - he already did.
3. In contending over the body of Moses, if Michael was Christ, why was there any contention at all? Or do you think that Satan's power is equal to Christ's? Check the verse:
Jud 1:9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
4. Obviously from this verse, God could rebuke Satan. If Christ is part of the Godhead, why couldn't He rebuke Satan?
"If Michael means in place of God" Gabriel means 'mighty like God'...do you think Gabriel is Christ, too?
[/font]MAC said:[font=Arial,Helvetica]Who is Michael?[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven." (Rev. 12:7, 8)[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Michael is not mentioned often the the Bible but, by comparing texts, we can learn his more common identity. We begin with the little book of Jude:[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst [dared] not bring against him a railing [slanderous, 1306a2] accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." (Jude 9). Jude's purpose in this verse is to condemn those who teach grace as license jude04 and who criticize authority jude08. He takes the dispute with the devil as an example, revealing other information that is of particular interest to us. So Michael is also the archangel. The prefix "arch-" means to be "first" or "reigning over." This agrees with verse 7 where Michael is commander of the angels re1207. (Also 1pe0321f)[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]Next let's look at a verse describing the archangel. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout [command], with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" (1 Thess. 4:16)[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]So the archangel, whom we saw in Jude as also Michael, calls the dead to life. [/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]
? Let's look at Song of SolomenIn other words, only Jesus Christ will call the dead, so he is the archangel in 1st Thessalonians and He is Michael who calls Moses to life in Jude. And He is Michael who, with His angels, cast Satan out of heaven! Compare Song 5:10 which harmonizes with our seeing Him as head of the angels.[/font]
But...Joshua 5:15 does not indicate that the person's name is Michael! To say so is to add to scripture! Let's look at it:[font=Arial,Helvetica]In Joshua 5:15, Christ identifies Himself as the captain of the Lord's host. He was the captain of the angels of heaven. They are the Lord's army (Rev. 19:14). Furthermore, He would not have accepted Joshua's worship if He had been an ordinary angel (see Joshua 5). Thus again He is the archangel, Michael.[/font]
[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Christ is a human because He took on humanity to save us. This does not prevent Him from also being divine. We do not know very much about His relation to the angels, but He was one with them and he was their commander. We cannot rule out the possibility that He also took their nature as He has ours.[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]
Isa 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!Isa 14:13 "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north.Isa 14:14 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'Isa 14:15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit.MAC said:[font=Arial,Helvetica] Lucifer wanted Christ's job as he tried to work his way up to higher positions in the government of the universe (Isa. 14:13).[/font]
Why isn't it?[font=Arial,Helvetica]First here is the verse we are discussing:[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst [dared] not bring against him a railing [slanderous] accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." (Jude 9)[/font] [font=Arial,Helvetica]Why would Michael dispute with the devil over the body of Moses? Satan doesn't want anyone resurrected. How he must have trembled when our Lord arose from the tomb! The Jewish leaders who sent Jesus to the cross were clearly inspired by Satan. Their idea of sealing the tomb (Matt. 27:64) was likewise inspired by him. He claimed victory and wanted it secure. Their excuse that the disciples, who were hiding from them, might steal the body is hardly convincing. (John 20:19).[/font]
[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica]Many who read these lines assume that the inner person escapes the body at death and goes, in spirit form, to heaven or hell. Although we find no support for this idea in Scripture 1411g, I respect those who have not understood.[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]
MAC said:Not only SDA have some of that idea but also Pentecostal, Baptize, Reformed and many others. It is not about what domination it is, is what I am trying to learn through the word of God about Michael.
But what do you think about this;
It's in the Name
First, let's consider the meaning of some words and names. In the Greek New Testament, as compared to the Old Testament, the word "angel" means "messenger," and "arch" means "chief, principle, greatest, or highest." So "archangel" simply means "highest or greatest messenger." The Hebrew name "Michael" means "who is like God" or "Who is like God?" Whether this name is a question, statement, or a challenge will be clear by further study. One angel did profess to be like God. That fallen being is Lucifer, the covering cherub in the heavenly courts who became the devil, Satan, by claiming to "be like the most High" (Isaiah 14:14). In Revelation 12:7 Satan is opposed by "Michael and his angels" and is cast out of heaven.
[/quote}
And Gabriel means "mighty like God" - do you think Gabriel is also Christ?
And did you read the verse in Hebrews about Christ NOT taking on the nature of angels, contrary to what that author wrote?
As you have avoided my questions regarding the Jude passage, I'll include this:
(Jude 1:9 NIV) "But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!""
(2 Pet 2:11 NIV) "yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord."
Michael an angel, did the work of angels as outlined in 2 Peter, as he did not bring a slanderous accusation against the devil. Jude does not identify the archangel Michael, as Christ. But what is an archangel? From Strong's Dictionary, 743. "archaggelos, ar-khang'-el-os; from G757 and G32; a chief angel:--archangel." Archangel means a chief angel. Michael therefore is a chief angel. Jesus is not a chief angel, or a created being, but Commander over the angels. He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Michael said to the devil, "the Lord rebuke you." Michael as archangel (chief angel) a created being, does not have authority to rebuke the devil in disputing over the body of Moses, so he invokes the Lord's name.
Now to save time I will agree that there are instances of Christophany (preincarnate appearances of Christ) in the OT. I already wrote this to you. Melchizadek is an example. In the other instances when 'the Angel of the Lord' appears, it is evident it is the Lord. But he is NOT called Michael in these instances, nor referred to as an archangle, nor 'one of the chief princes'. And Angel can be referred to in them as a messenger.
Can you show ONE verse that says Michael - by name - is the Christ? That Michael would die for our sins? That Michael is more that an angel?
More regarding Mechizdek: Salem means peace, so Melchizedek is the King of Peace. Hebrews 7 has alot more to say about him.Polycarp1 said:Michael is the Prince of the (loyal) Angels, according to Scripture -- as Satan is Prince of the Rebellious Angels, who became demons.
As for Melchizedek, the name means, roughly, "Messenger of Righteousness" -- and "melek" (the first element of the name) or variations on it is the term used for "angel" in Hebrew.
He was Priest/King of Salem, on the site of what would later be Jerusalem, and Abraham offered him a tithe and he offered Abraham bread and wine. From this, the author of Hebrews draws, by obvious symbology, the implication that Melchizedek is an antetype of Christ -- and therefore both are superior to the Aaronic priesthood.
This comment makes no sense. While the word angel can be translated as messenger for a role that is undertaken, there are angels who are created beings. And contrary to White, Jesus did not take on the nature of angels to save them. Again:danceforjoy said:Are Seventh-Day Adventists "Angels" just because they preach the "Three Angel's Messages of Revelation fourteen?
Just as Mac said, Angels means heavenly messengers with a message directly from heaven. The everlasting gospel anouncing the arrival of God's judgment hour together with giving glory to Christ as Creator God and Lord of the Seventh-Day Sabbath.
Warning of the fall of Babylon and the "mark of the beast 666"!
So Michael is not necessarely an Angel as the world sees it. Compare revelation 1:5 where it says that Jesus is the first begotten of the dead.
This verse has caused much perplexity. Obviously Jesus was not the first one to be rsurrected. Besides Moses, Jesus raised three others. There are at least two ways that the word "first" may be understood. It can either mean first in point of time or first in preeminence.
Not until the cross could heaven witness Satan's real character??With the contest between God and the Devil, we have to remember that the Devil as Lucifer and star of the morning was so loved by his angels that they followed him into the rebellion of sin. Had God destroyed the devil and saved us so much pain, then in the back of the mind of all intelligent beings a question mark over God's fairness in dealing with sin would have remained forever.
The affection of the Universe was still with Lucifer when the body of Moses was disputed. Not until the cross, could heaven witness Satan's real character and intent against the governement of God by trying to put out the light and keep this planet as his own forever.
Only at the cross was Satan finally defeated and all saw the fairness of God in dealing with Lucifer and the sin problem.
Again, you aren't making much sense. Exactly who denies that evil spirits - aka fallen angels - follow Satan? 1/3 of the angels (who are created beings) in heaven followed Satan in rebellion. That the number of those who stayed are myriads and myriads" mean those 1/3 could be legion. So. Doesn't mean that those who follow God are "affectionate" toward Satan. And an archangel would lead angels.danceforjoy said:FreeinChrist!
"The devil and his angels fought in heaven" and when Jesus casted out devils and went into swine the demon said our name is 'legion' for we are many.
Isn't this scripture enough for you to believe? Isn't that proof that evil spirits or angels are affectionate to Satan?
And I expect that others will see the problem with her writing. The lack of scriptural back up. Supply it if it exists.Nice of you quoting White when it wasn't called for. Thanks anywhy, it's good for others to spread our message.
You are either misstating what I wrote or it wasn't clear enough. I did not write that through the centuries, Christians believed it so and only now they don't. Only just that at certain points, certain teachers taught it. But it did not hold up.But it is certainly nasty work to compare us to J.W's and when as you say it use to be believed through the centuries that Michael refered to Christ but not anymore, what do you think why this is so?