• 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.

Question about Michael the Archangel

Jon0388g

Veteran
Aug 11, 2006
1,259
29
London
✟24,167.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Pythons

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2008
4,215
226
✟5,503.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which being in the universe can be in any way compared to the Eternal? Especially when Scripture says


Psalm’s 113, 5 is a self-evident statement of fact (not a question) “that nothing is like God”, not a question of who or what could be like unto God. To interpret this Scripture as a question and then provide St. Michael as the answer is still comparing a ‘separate substance’ that is outside the One Substance of God to God. Catholicism’s teaching is that God is One and because He is one, God could not be Michael because Michael is one (singular) within a group of other separate and singular creatures of the same substance.

1 Chronicles 17,20 & Isaiah 46,9 are affirmative (in my view) of the Catholic position that God can’t be Michael because just like the Psalm, they are also statements of fact. Consider,

“For to which of the Angels did God ever say “You are my Son; today I have become your Father? Or again, I will be his Father, and he will be my Son? And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world He says, “Let all God’s angles worship him”. In speaking of the angels He says, “He makes His angles winds, His servants flames of fire”. But about the Son He says, Your Throne, O GOD, will last forever and ever and righteousness will be the scepter of your Kingdom”. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. He also says, in the beginning , oh Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end. TO WHICH OF THE ANGELS DID GOD EVER SAY, SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOD FOR YOUR FEET? ARE NOT ALL ANGLES MINISTERING SPIRITS SENT TO SERVE THOSE WHO WILL INHERIT SALVATION?” Hebrews 1, 5


“You are my witness, “Declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that “I am He”. Before Me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me”. Isaiah 43,10

To say it another way, if one reads Hebrews and concludes that Michael was promoted from where he was (among his angelic peers) or Inherited a special status where he would be called God then it violates Isaiah 43,10 because the act of promotion or action of inheritance is outside of the statement of fact of “no God prior and no God after”.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm sure you can appreciate "Who is like YHWH" does not quite equal "One like unto YHWH". One is the derivative of the other.


Jon

I posted the meanings and the links from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I don't know any reason to assume that you take "one like unto YHWH" is anymore accurate then the meaning given by the Jewish Encyclopedia. Now if you assumption that one particular meaning of the word is dependent upon one particular way of expressing it then you are working from a faulty assumption.

If you don't like the question mark in the English translation of the two then you would need to explain why it is appropriate in the one case and not the other. All this certainty of meaning by a name is certainty based upon presuppositions and not meaningful.
 
Upvote 0

Shrewsbury

Newbie
Feb 6, 2011
85
0
United Kingdom
✟23,005.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
I had only ever heard this from Jehovah's Witnesses until I began to investigate the SDA church.

Looking at the explanation and Scripture, it makes perfect sense. Jesus was Christ's earthly name, and we know He has a number of names. Why wouldn't He have a name like Michael in heaven?
 
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Amen...

Many people become confused with the title, angel. They believe the word, angel, can only refer to a created being but the word, angel, only means messenger. Michael and Jesus are names given to God's chief messenger in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
 
Upvote 0
O

OntheDL

Guest
I read an article that listed all the names that Jesus is known by... the list was quite extensive. Thats why, to me, to think we have to call Him by His Hebrew name, YESHUAH, is not neccessary.

That's ns by the messianics that you have to call Him by His correct name to be saved.

Mo ses: Egyptian: Mo: water; ses: saves. Moses: Water saves.

The paleo Hebrew or the northern Semitic language came from the Egyptian, Phoenician phonics. And the Greeks are the direct descendant of the Phoenicians. So the Greek probably sounds a lot more like the real Hebrew language than today best guess-pronunciation of vowles of the Hebrew.

Jesus: Je: IEE (Greek), derived from Yeh: God (Hebrew). sus: saves (Hebrew/Egyptian). God saves.

There is no name under heaven more glorious than the name of Jesus.

God has many names. They depict His characters and His functions. Here is a great book by Leslie Hardinge on the name of God.

His Name is Wonderful

His name is wonderful: studies of ... - Google Books
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0