Michael the Arch Angel

[Adventist Dissident]

Alex: We have a stat correction to make, it seems that Pythons jumped in to quickly and for got to check the greek. upon further review $2000 awarded, you answer is correct.

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 4:16 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)
1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550) 16
οτι αυτος ο κυριος εν κελευσματι εν φωνη αρχαγγελου και εν σαλπιγγι θεου καταβησεται απ ουρανου και οι νεκροι εν χριστω αναστησονται πρωτον

here is how the greek is to be interpeted

and God himself,
with a shout,
with the voice of Michael,
with the trumpet call of God,
will desend from heaven and the dead in christ will rise first.

that is how it is to be interpeted, notice the "with" statment
they are all in the greek dative case. which means that they are, discribing the Subject of the sentence which is God.

God with a shout,
God with the voice of Michael,
God with the trumpet call of(belong to) God (himself)


It like saying,
My car,
with a convertable top,
with a v6 engin
with cool wheels,
goes real fast.

nobody can be confused with all the "with" statements are describing my car. it is giving more data or information about the subject, my car. That is what we have in the greek. the phrase "with the voice of Michael the Arch Angel" is describing the Lord, not a seprate being, looks like the sda's are right on this one.

lets bring this up again

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC. thank-you for your opinion, I appreciate the fact that someone is willing to disscuss what I wrote. However, you did not address the Greek text, you just invalidated what i wrote. please address the greek and offer a better suggestion for interpetation.

I am not a Greek scholar, and I doubt you are either. Even if one were that does not mean that the Greek in unequivocal. The general interpretation in history is that the events occur at that time not that all those things are preformed by Christ. Unity of heaven acting for the benefit of man. However if it was all meant to indicate that it was all the sounds made by God it would have been easiest to understand without the archangel word used.

1TH 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

The voice of the archangel if it were not an addition to the loud command would be unnecessary. Unless one assumes that this is all some hidden clue to reveal that Michael the archangel was Christ, an idea foreign to the Jewish religion. And one would think that if that was part of Paul's purpose he would address the subject of Michael in a more straight forward fashion.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I'm afraid survey says: "NO".

It's translated "Lord" from "Kyrios", not God from Elohiym. Jesus is certainly "God" so I'll let your translation stand along with your affirmation that Mary IS the Mother of God.

you make no sense what is your point are you saying the Lord is not God. or what. it is a referecne to God. you should know that now.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 4:16 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)
1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550) 16
οτι αυτος ο κυριος εν κελευσματι εν φωνη αρχαγγελου και εν σαλπιγγι θεου καταβησεται απ ουρανου και οι νεκροι εν χριστω αναστησονται πρωτον

If I'm a modern day General that "enters a theatre" it would be Biblically described exactly as 1 Thessalonians 4,16. The voice of Michael would be the drone of the plane delivering Paton to the theatre and the sound of the advancing subordinates would be the trumpet call. You have not dealt with the "Substance" Ice and herein lies the reason Michael is not Christ.

nice illustration, but not applicable.
I believe you are not dealing with the "substance" an Arch angel is not an angel. that is a conclusion you have drawn.

Meaning
Arch = the chief of
Angels = messengers
Michael = Who is like God

The cheif of the messengers Who is like God

Action of Michael
Daniel 12 = waging war and rescuing God people
Jude = ressurection
Rev = Expelling the Dragon from heaven
1 th 4 = rasing the dead

like it the text says

Jesus is God and therefore of the exact same Substance as the Father and Holy Spirit. As the Word was Eternally Begotten of the Father there was never a time or moment prior to time He was not as He is. Because "everything", to include archangel's, were created through The Word God could not (and certainly did not) become a butter-bar.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I am not a Greek scholar, and I doubt you are either.

i took 2 years of it.

Even if one were that does not mean that the Greek in unequivocal

. If the text identifes Michael with the Lord then yes it is unequiviocal.




The voice of the archangel if it were not an addition to the loud command would be unnecessary. Unless one assumes that this is all some hidden clue to reveal that Michael the archangel was Christ, an idea foreign to the Jewish religion. And one would think that if that was part of Paul's purpose he would address the subject of Michael in a more straight forward fashion.

Or maybe he assumed the audience would know what he ment.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

round and round and round we go where it stops no one knows. unless you deal with the greek you will never change my mind. come up with a better interpetion. I don't think there is any evidence no matter how logical or reasonable that would ever change your mindl.

 

[Pythons]

you make no sense what is your point are you saying the Lord is not God. or what. it is a referecne to God. you should know that now.

I do, I just wanted to get you on record and you did.

nice illustration, but not applicable.
I believe you are not dealing with the "substance" an Arch angel is not an angel. that is a conclusion you have drawn.

It's "archangel", not Arch Angel and that's irrelevant as Sacred Scripture clearly identifies the "archangel Michael" as being ONE of more of the same type. Michael is one of a group of "Chief Princes" and that disqualifys him from being Him that is One-of-a-Kind. It's the conclusion of Trinitarian Doctrine that happens to only be questioned by Adventist Groups such as JW's / Christadelphians / WWCOG / Davidians / and some SDA's. Name a non-Adventist Church who states Michael was Jesus prior to Incarnation.

Meaning
Arch = the chief of
Angels = messengers
Michael = Who is like God

The cheif of the messengers Who is like God

"Who is like God" isn't God by it's very definition. Remember, Michael is one of other chief princes so there are other archangels who share whatever substance it is that Michael is made out of which renders impossible that God would be of the same Substance as His creation. God could be a chicken, frog or pig for that matter if Michael is Christ.

Action of Michael
Daniel 12 = waging war and rescuing God people
Jude = ressurection
Rev = Expelling the Dragon from heaven
1 th 4 = rasing the dead
[/quote]

Waging war is what archangels do Ice, that's why Michael is the Patron Saint of Soldiers, cops and others who are in harms way with their jobs.

Jude 11 does not say Moses was resurrected. Jesus said that "no man has ascended to heaven but Him" and God Himself buried Moses so Moses is not resurrected. Where in the world did that come from?

When, in your understanding, did Michael become "The Word" or Son of God?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Or maybe he assumed the audience would know what he ment.

Why would he assume that? Is there anything you can find that clearly puts forth the idea that Michael is Christ?

By the way 2 years of college Greek only makes people who think they know Greek. They don't nor do you find 2 year students of Greek used on Bible Translations. And it being the Greek for "with" which can be used in multiple ways just as our English word "with".

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Why would he assume that? Is there anything you can find that clearly puts forth the idea that Michael is Christ?

By the way 2 years of college Greek only makes people who think they know Greek. They don't nor do you find 2 year students of Greek used on Bible Translations. And it being the Greek for "with" which can be used in multiple ways just as our English word "with".

and no greek make you an expert RC? backed into a corner this time and now you are making personal attaks. RC you are better then that. I have respected you because you don't go to that level, don't disappointment me now. you sound like dj conklin. that is not a good thing.

 

[freeindeed2]

I have 2 years of Greek too, but I'm NO expert. I haven't seen anything here compeling enough to convince me that Jesus is Michael the archangel, using the Greek or otherwise. He comes 'with' the souls under the altar too, but that doesn't make him 'the souls under the altar'.

Why the insistence that Jesus IS the archangel? Would this even be an issue if EGW hadn't made the statements she did about it? The JW's also hold this view and a smattering of others, but it is NOT a Christian belief about Jesus. Quite the opposite! Why is it SO important to SDA's?

In CHRIST alone...

 

[Adventist Dissident]

for you your rejejection come on the baisis of EGW not on the basis of the evidence. For me it is the on the ideas itself. Ellen is not a factor. Non sda like to say that there is no text that identifies jesus with Michael, but when they can be pointed to a text that says the lord has the voice of Michael, the Archangel they refuse to accept it.

you insist that it cannot be at all and when you identify michael as jesus it make the most sence. there is a positive link you just don't like it.

 

[.chrys.]

For my part, it is not a refusal to accept it, icedragon101, but rather it is because the argument is non-convincing. From the text in Thessalonians alone, I am unconvinced that the Lord is an archangel. I do not insist that it is inconceivable, but I do insist that this verse alone does not support the idea as irrefutable.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

For my part, it is not a refusal to accept it, icedragon101, but rather it is because the argument is non-convincing. From the text in Thessalonians alone, I am unconvinced that the Lord is an archangel. I do not insist that it is inconceivable, but I do insist that this verse alone does not support the idea as irrefutable.

I am not trying to convince you. you are free to believe what you what, but to say that there is no evidence for connection, not true some people won't believe no matter what.

What I think this come down to is a basic approach to scripture. Do you start with with who God is or do you start with a conclusion. you start with a conclusion. He can't be it.



If you start with God's character, who he is and what he says about himself, you aren't going to have a problem with that conclusion.

Here is the problem

god says that he will NOT share his Glory with anyone, but then you see this Archangel, taking the Golry that Belongs to God then you have to stop and say hey wait a minute either God is now going back on his word and sharing his glory with the Archangel, so much so that people now pray to him for resuce or it is actually christ with a different name, which to me makes the most sense. We see Christ called many different names in the OT. I am, El shaddi, El-elyoin, Emannuel, so why not Michael? the insistance that Archangel is some how exactly the same as an angel is not valid, those who want to insist on that interpetation must ignore Evidence and shut it out. they just won't deal with. They will not look at ALL possible range of interpetation. Arch = Cheif of, not Cheif, it does not say he is an angel. Just like the commander in cheif is not actually a soilder. He is the Cheif of the Soilders. WE do this on a human level, why not a divine level?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

for you your rejejection come on the baisis of EGW not on the basis of the evidence. For me it is the on the ideas itself. Ellen is not a factor. Non sda like to say that there is no text that identifies jesus with Michael, but when they can be pointed to a text that says the lord has the voice of Michael, the Archangel they refuse to accept it.

you insist that it cannot be at all and when you identify michael as jesus it make the most sence. there is a positive link you just don't like it.

First it is not an attack on you personally to say that 2 years of college Greek classes does not make one an expert or a Greek Scholar. Just as 2 years of college Spanish won't make you an expert on the Spanish language. Hopefully you will understand it a little better be able to read and speak it but to be an expert or a scholar does require actual immersion into the language. I am sorry if you took offense but I have seen too many SDA ministers say utter garbage about Greek from the pulpit because they took some Greek classes and now they think they know more then the actual Greek Scholars publications.

You say in the above:

but when they can be pointed to a text that says the lord has the voice of Michael, the Archangel they refuse to accept it.

You don't even have that much evidence. The verses does not say that the voice of the Archangel raises the dead, it is just an additional voice to that of the Lord who descends with a shout (loud command). Neither does the text say that the dead our raised because of the loud command. So at best all you have is a different interpretation of the verse which can easily be interpreted as a number of things occurring at the same time.

The idea that you later suggested that God would not share His glory with another is refuted by the stories of the appearance of angels where they appear glorious, where they act as the messengers of God. God certainly would not have to use an angel He could come up with other ways to send His messages. So you are not really even beginning from an objective point you are very likely beginning from the EGW point of view. Believe me that is a powerfully indoctrinated perspective and it takes a while to even realize it's impact. And that is not only for EGW but we can see it in many Christians who have accepted traditions. Those traditions become their starting point for Biblical understanding whether the traditions have any basis in fact or make sense. That is why modern Christianity has to deconstruct then reconstruct their religion and that scares most people.

 

[tall73]

I see some evidence on both sides of this question.


DA 10:4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, 5 I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

DA 10:7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; the men with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.

DA 10:10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, "Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you." And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.

DA 10:12 Then he continued, "Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come."

DA 10:15 While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face toward the ground and was speechless. 16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I am helpless. 17 How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe."

DA 10:18 Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. 19 "Do not be afraid, O man highly esteemed," he said. "Peace! Be strong now; be strong."
When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, "Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength."

DA 10:20 So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)

Here we see that Gabriel describes what some have seen to be a spiritual battle between angelic and demonic powers (although others see it as an angelic power wrestling with the human prince of Persia to bring about a change of mind).

In any case, a few points here jump out. At the beginning of the passage Daniel sees a figure that has striking parallels to the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1. Since Gabriel says that Michael had helped him some see this appearance as an appearance of Michael, and therefore link it with the vision in Revelation 1.

Daniel: Dressed in linen, with a belt of the finest gold around his waist. 6 His body was like chrysolite, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.

Revelation: And in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.


On the other hand 10:13 describes Michael as ONE of the chief princes which seems to go against the notion that it is Christ as others have noted.




DA 12:1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

There are some strong parallels between this passage and John 5 in which Jesus says He will speak and the dead who are in their graves will rise to everlasting life or shame and everlasting contempt. Here Michael is called the great prince rather than just one of the chief princes.

Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
Joh 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.


In Jude we see Michael again mentioned:

JUDE 1:8 In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9 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!" 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

Here Michael is seen disputing with Satan. Now some have pointed out that he says "the Lord rebuke you." In other words, why would he say that if he were Jesus? However, this is actually quoting from Zechariah originally

ZEC 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"

So here we see the LORD Himself saying "the Lord rebuke you" So it doesn't exactly rule it out, and may even strengthen the association. Again in this context, as with the others, we see Michael involved in a spiritual struggle.

The reference to Moses body is believed to be a quote from a lost portion of an extra-biblical book.

Moses and Elijah were both present at the transfiguration suggesting that Moses' body was resurrected, as there is no reference to Moses being out of body and Elijah was taken directly to heaven without dying.



Again we see Michael in Rev. 12:7

REV 12:7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

Here we see Michael as in charge of the angels, clearly again in conflict.

Thessalonians does not mention Michael, but does speak of the voice of an archangel.

1 Thess. 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Here we see that it says that the Lord will come down with a loud command and the voice of the archangel.

Some see the voice as that of Jesus, also spoken of in John 5 as before, and some see it as an angel accompanying Him.

As to the term for archangel, it seems it is up to those who take the position that it does not indicate that Jesus is an angel but merely over the angels to demonstrate that the prefix αρχ- is used in that way. In the example of ἀρχιερεύς, chief priest, the person was still a priest, though over the others. If the same model were followed Michael would still be an angel, though over the others. Is there linguistic evidence of the opposite? One who is over but does not partake in that nature? I don't know. I tend to think that the prefix is to distinguish superiority WITHIN a class more than simply to indicate status above a class. It would be much like our English usage "arch-enemy" etc. An arch-enemy is one's chief enemy. He is still an enemy.

I think RC's point regarding the I Peter/Jude parallel verses is interestig as the two books often have shared content.

Overall I think there is some evidence that could point to the connection, but the idea that Jesus is one of the chief priests does not fit, nor has it been demonstrated than an ἀρχαγγέλοs is not an angel, and Peter's parallel comment suggests that Michael is lumped in with angels.

 

[Pythons]

How could Michael share the Divine Substance with other equal chief princes and remain ONE with what is God? The Father & The Son & The Holy Spirit is the forumla for Baptism and we know it was from the Word (Son) that everything was created, to include angels and archangels. If there is more then one archangel for a total of three then I could see how one would say the Father is an archangel as well as the Holy Spirit is an archangel but Scripture is totally against that.

Job 38 states that the angels were in existence before the world was created, "While the morning stars sang together and the angels shouted for joy". This, technically, is before "time started". How long this was I have not idea yet if one of the main functions angels had was to help those who would inherit salvation (Heb 1) then it certainly proves 1) angels were created and 2) as creation they are outside the Divine Substance that is God which means that there is no creation of God that is God.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

How could Michael share the Divine Substance with other equal chief princes and remain ONE with what is God? The Father & The Son & The Holy Spirit is the forumla for Baptism and we know it was from the Word (Son) that everything was created, to include angels and archangels. If there is more then one archangel for a total of three then I could see how one would say the Father is an archangel as well as the Holy Spirit is an archangel but Scripture is totally against that.

This is actually a pretty good point, the Jesus is Michael argument is pretty much based upon a tri-theistic view of God. If you really think of it in the modalist or trinitarian (the God is One) view it would be the same as saying God is Michael the archangel. But I have never heard either Adventist or Jehovah's Witnesses express it that way.

 

[Pythons]

I have not heard it said that way either. The Trinity is what will crush Ellen White's hold on Seventh-day Adventism. They can't maintain the Trinity as a fundamental belief and defend Arian or Tri-theistic statements without pouring a new meaning into what the Trinity is which is easy to see by anyone who accepts Nicea as authoritative as the 1st Christian Council in Acts 15.

My guess is that is why so much time and feverish emphasis is placed on the study of prophecy, it's takes ones mind away from something so simple literally anyone could see it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

First it is not an attack on you personally to say that 2 years of college Greek classes does not make one an expert or a Greek Scholar. Just as 2 years of college Spanish won't make you an expert on the Spanish language. Hopefully you will understand it a little better be able to read and speak it but to be an expert or a scholar does require actual immersion into the language. I am sorry if you took offense but I have seen too many SDA ministers say utter garbage about Greek from the pulpit because they took some Greek classes and now they think they know more then the actual Greek Scholars publications.

You say in the above:
You don't even have that much evidence. The verses does not say that the voice of the Archangel raises the dead, it is just an additional voice to that of the Lord who descends with a shout (loud command). Neither does the text say that the dead our raised because of the loud command. So at best all you have is a different interpretation of the verse which can easily be interpreted as a number of things occurring at the same time.

The idea that you later suggested that God would not share His glory with another is refuted by the stories of the appearance of angels where they appear glorious, where they act as the messengers of God. God certainly would not have to use an angel He could come up with other ways to send His messages. So you are not really even beginning from an objective point you are very likely beginning from the EGW point of view. Believe me that is a powerfully indoctrinated perspective and it takes a while to even realize it's impact. And that is not only for EGW but we can see it in many Christians who have accepted traditions. Those traditions become their starting point for Biblical understanding whether the traditions have any basis in fact or make sense. That is why modern Christianity has to deconstruct then reconstruct their religion and that scares most people.

I see no point in arguing with you about greek, you do not know it and I do. Please respond to my question and not to your understanding of the what you believe to be my skill in greek. you are not quallifed to say any thing about what a 2 year greek student can or cannot understand. Invalidation is not the tool of the open minded, it is the tool of those who use propanganda.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Alex: We have a stat correction to make, it seems that Pythons jumped in to quickly and for got to check the greek. upon further review $2000 awarded, you answer is correct.

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 4:16 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)
1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550) 16
οτι αυτος ο κυριος εν κελευσματι εν φωνη αρχαγγελου και εν σαλπιγγι θεου καταβησεται απ ουρανου και οι νεκροι εν χριστω αναστησονται πρωτον

here is how the greek is to be interpeted

and God himself,
with a shout,
with the voice of Michael,
with the trumpet call of God,
will desend from heaven and the dead in christ will rise first.

that is how it is to be interpeted, notice the "with" statment
they are all in the greek dative case. which means that they are, discribing the Subject of the sentence which is God.

God with a shout,
God with the voice of Michael,
God with the trumpet call of(belong to) God (himself)


It like saying,
My car,
with a convertable top,
with a v6 engin
with cool wheels,
goes real fast.

nobody can be confused with all the "with" statements are describing my car. it is giving more data or information about the subject, my car. That is what we have in the greek. the phrase "with the voice of Michael the Arch Angel" is describing the Lord, not a seprate being, looks like the sda's are right on this one.

tall could you comment on the arrangement of the greek and the dative case. It seems that the text is amplifying the subject, in this case the Lord.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

here is the wiki in the Greek dative Case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case#The_dative_case_in_Greek