Seventh Day Adventists teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel

[mailmandan]

Seventh day Adventists teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel and seem to be very firm in their belief. This is what their prophetess, Ellen G. White taught. From what I've also read in their statement of beliefs, they also believe that Jesus is God, which is a contradiction.

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee?'" (Hebrews 1:5)

"But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...'" (Hebrews 1:8a).

"But to which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet?' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:13-14)

JW's also believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel yet do not believe that Jesus is God. I see a clear distinction in the power and authority of Jesus and Michael the archangel when comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan and in Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel "dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy" against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is Lord and is God incarnate (Romans 10:9; John 1:1,14) yet Michael the archangel is only an angel.

 

[dcontroversal]

Seventh day Adventists teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel and seem to be very firm in their belief. This is what their prophetess, Ellen G. White taught. From what I've also read in their statement of beliefs, they also believe that Jesus is God, which is a contradiction.

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee?'" (Hebrews 1:5)

"But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...'" (Hebrews 1:8a).

"But to which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet?' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:13-14)

JW's also believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel yet do not believe that Jesus is God. I see a clear distinction in the power and authority of Jesus and Michael the archangel when comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan and in Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel "dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy" against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is Lord and is God incarnate (Romans 10:9; John 1:1,14) yet Michael the archangel is only an angel.

Houston, we have a problem............and they would be in error if they believe and peddle that garbage.........it is akin to saying Jesus is not God..........seems many cults like to peddle ignorance like a street organ player in Bombay in 1937 with a dancing monkey for coin.............

 

[JaumeJ]

The SDA has assumed the teaching of Jesus as God, however there is a segment yet not adhereting to this.

God knows who are His…... We may judge for ourselves what is right, but not for others, not even on any possible decption they may be under…...…..

 

[Lanolin]

Do they, I thought it was only JWS that had this strange belief.

They dont believe Jesus is Jesus? The Messiah, the son of God? JEsus would ask his disciples who do you say I am? I dont recall anyone in scripture answering back well I think you are really Michael the archangel. Weird!

 

[JustEli]

https://carm.org/

here is a great site that has a bunch of useful info. And yes it is the jws that believe that garbage.

 

[iamsoandso]

Seventh day Adventists teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel and seem to be very firm in their belief. This is what their prophetess, Ellen G. White taught. From what I've also read in their statement of beliefs, they also believe that Jesus is God, which is a contradiction.

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee?'" (Hebrews 1:5)

"But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...'" (Hebrews 1:8a).

"But to which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet?' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:13-14)

JW's also believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel yet do not believe that Jesus is God. I see a clear distinction in the power and authority of Jesus and Michael the archangel when comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan and in Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel "dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy" against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is Lord and is God incarnate (Romans 10:9; John 1:1,14) yet Michael the archangel is only an angel.

Look at the word "avatar" and it's roots. There are many groups who taught similar ideas of gods being incarnate in human body's(Kelts/Celts,Gnostic,Hindu,church of Scientology ect.).

In A.H. there is a lot of things Irenaeus explained about Valantinus teachings/Gnostic. He(valentinus) basically taught that Jesus,Mary ect. had lived in different forms(Mary/Sophia,Jesus/Messiah ect.) and that Jesus would also return as the antichrist(same spirit in different body) which is why he took the letters(iota,eta) of the Greek spelling of Jesus name and came up with 616 instead of 666.

 

[mailmandan]

https://carm.org/

here is a great site that has a bunch of useful info. And yes it is the jws that believe that garbage.

https://carm.org/michael-archangel-jesus

 

[UnderGrace]

Seventh day Adventists teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel and seem to be very firm in their belief. This is what their prophetess, Ellen G. White taught. From what I've also read in their statement of beliefs, they also believe that Jesus is God, which is a contradiction.

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee?'" (Hebrews 1:5)

"But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...'" (Hebrews 1:8a).

"But to which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet?' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:13-14)

JW's also believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel yet do not believe that Jesus is God. I see a clear distinction in the power and authority of Jesus and Michael the archangel when comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan and in Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel "dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy" against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is Lord and is God incarnate (Romans 10:9; John 1:1,14) yet Michael the archangel is only an angel.

To further elaborate from their web site from an SDA website, their doctrine is different than SJW

We emphatically reject the idea set forth in this question, and the position held by the Jehovah's Witnesses. We do not believe that Christ is a created being. We, as a people, have not considered the identification of Michael of sufficient prominence to dwell upon it at length either in our literature or in our preaching. But we do have clear views on the subject, and are prepared to set them forth. And our views concerning Michael, it might be added, have been held by various eminent scholars through the centuries. We are therefore not alone in our understanding.

We believe that the term "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. But such a view does not in any way conflict with our belief in His full deity and eternal pre-existence, nor does it in the least disparage His person and work.

72​

Michael is referred to in the book of Jude as the archangel. And were it not for other Scripture references, which present Him in another relationship, one might at first conclude that He was a created being, as are the angels in general. We believe, however, that those other relationships indicate His real status, and that, in addition, He serves as supreme leader of the angelic hosts. But His serving in that capacity does not make Him a created angel. A number of important factors must be considered in a study of this question.

Link

 

[JustEli]

well, that certainly clears things up............... LOL

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Seventh day Adventists teach that Jesus is Michael the archangel and seem to be very firm in their belief. This is what their prophetess, Ellen G. White taught. From what I've also read in their statement of beliefs, they also believe that Jesus is God, which is a contradiction.

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee?'" (Hebrews 1:5)

"But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever...'" (Hebrews 1:8a).

"But to which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet?' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:13-14)

JW's also believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel yet do not believe that Jesus is God. I see a clear distinction in the power and authority of Jesus and Michael the archangel when comparing Matthew 4:10 where Jesus rebukes Satan and in Jude verse 9, where Michael the archangel "dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy" against Satan and calls on the Lord to rebuke him. Jesus is Lord and is God incarnate (Romans 10:9; John 1:1,14) yet Michael the archangel is only an angel.

SDAs believe that Jesus is Michael. However, they believe that he is still God. They think Michael is one of his names, but not that Jesus is an angel.

SDAs have issues with their understanding of the Trinity, though. They will say they don't believe in the "Roman Catholic Trinity".

I would compare their view of the Trinity to tri-theism. In other words, they believe in three separate beings, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. This is because that is how Ellen G. White saw them in vision.

James White, Ellen's husband, believed in an Arian position at one time. This would be similar to JWs. I think that the early SDAs changed their view on this, but there are some remnants from this previous doctrinal position.

SDAs are very anti-Roman Catholic. I have debated some of them on the Sabbath, and as a result, they think I am a Jesuit priest. Some of them believe Jesuits are active within other religions keeping them enslaved to Sunday worship.

Understanding amongst SDAs varies, though. Some are evangelicals but a little weird. Others are cultic. I have noticed that African SDAs tend to be the most cultic of the SDAs, but there are American SDAs that hold liberal views on abortion and moral example theory of the atonement. Since they think other denominations aren't part of their true church, they tend to hold suspicions toward us.

 

[TheLearner]

Many early SDA denied the deity of Christ. James White who was Ellen's Husband was a Pastor of the Christian Connextion.
Uriah Smiths' book on the Book of Revelation gave the Watchtower their argument on Rev 3:14 word for word in their works without accreditation to him. Since, they view the Son of God as a creature and believed that he pre-existed the creation of mankind, they came up with Jesus as Michael to make sense of their teachings.

""VERSE 14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God; " on page 399 or 400
http://adventpioneerbooks.com/Text/pioneer/USMITH/DANIEL AND THE REVELATION.pdf

 

[maxwel]

To further elaborate from their web site from an SDA website, their doctrine is different than SJW

We emphatically reject the idea set forth in this question, and the position held by the Jehovah's Witnesses. We do not believe that Christ is a created being. We, as a people, have not considered the identification of Michael of sufficient prominence to dwell upon it at length either in our literature or in our preaching. But we do have clear views on the subject, and are prepared to set them forth. And our views concerning Michael, it might be added, have been held by various eminent scholars through the centuries. We are therefore not alone in our understanding.

We believe that the term "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. But such a view does not in any way conflict with our belief in His full deity and eternal pre-existence, nor does it in the least disparage His person and work.

72​

Michael is referred to in the book of Jude as the archangel. And were it not for other Scripture references, which present Him in another relationship, one might at first conclude that He was a created being, as are the angels in general. We believe, however, that those other relationships indicate His real status, and that, in addition, He serves as supreme leader of the angelic hosts. But His serving in that capacity does not make Him a created angel. A number of important factors must be considered in a study of this question.

Link

Undergrace,
I have absolutely no issues with you personally.
None.

However, on a purely doctrinal level, it would seem that if Michael the archangel was NOT a created being, then he would be eternal, and thus, by definition, he would be self-existent rather than contingent. If something other than God is self-existent, this creates EXTRAORDINARY problems with the very nature of God himself. Self-existence logically implies the property of NECESSITY, the property of NECESSARY BEING... so we are ascribing to Michael the property of necessary being, a property which is theologically ascribed only to God, and a property which, if applied to Michael, and I think we can quickly show to be logically untenable without even opening the Bible.

This is an absolutely enormous theological and philosophical issue.

This just a huge, huge, issue.

I don't have any issues with you personally.
But this view is just extraordinarily problematic.
It is just off the charts.

.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Many early SDA denied the deity of Christ. James White who was Ellen's Husband was a Pastor of the Christian Connextion.
Uriah Smiths' book on the Book of Revelation gave the Watchtower their argument on Rev 3:14 word for word in their works without accreditation to him. Since, they view the Son of God as a creature and believed that he pre-existed the creation of mankind, they came up with Jesus as Michael to make sense of their teachings.

""VERSE 14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God; " on page 399 or 400
http://adventpioneerbooks.com/Text/pioneer/USMITH/DANIEL AND THE REVELATION.pdf

I had a copy of Smith’s book long ago. I don’t think I ever read it.

I would view Rev 3:14 as referring to the resurrection body of Christ. Jesus’ resurrection is the beginning of the new creation. Believers will receive their resurrection bodies at his return and all creation will be restored to a glorified, expanded version of the Garden of Eden.

 

[tourist]

Undergrace,
I have absolutely no issues with you personally.
None.

However, on a purely doctrinal level, it would seem that if Michael the archangel was NOT a created being, then he would be eternal, and thus, by definition, he would be self-existent rather than contingent. If something other than God is self-existent, this creates EXTRAORDINARY problems with the very nature of God himself. Self-existence logically implies the property of NECESSITY, the property of NECESSARY BEING... so we are ascribing to Michael the property of necessary being, a property which is theologically ascribed only to God, and a property which, if applied to Michael, and I think we can quickly show to be logically untenable without even opening the Bible.

This is an absolutely enormous theological and philosophical issue.

This just a huge, huge, issue.

I don't have any issues with you personally.
But this view is just extraordinarily problematic.
It is just off the charts.

.

After reading many of your posts through the years I believe you to be a really smart spiritual guy. Your writing is concise and on point. Yeah, occasionally you're very amusing as well. You sure have quite a wit, that's for sure.

 

[dcontroversal]

Undergrace,
I have absolutely no issues with you personally.
None.

However, on a purely doctrinal level, it would seem that if Michael the archangel was NOT a created being, then he would be eternal, and thus, by definition, he would be self-existent rather than contingent. If something other than God is self-existent, this creates EXTRAORDINARY problems with the very nature of God himself. Self-existence logically implies the property of NECESSITY, the property of NECESSARY BEING... so we are ascribing to Michael the property of necessary being, a property which is theologically ascribed only to God, and a property which, if applied to Michael, and I think we can quickly show to be logically untenable without even opening the Bible.

This is an absolutely enormous theological and philosophical issue.

This just a huge, huge, issue.

I don't have any issues with you personally.
But this view is just extraordinarily problematic.
It is just off the charts.

.

I am confused migo.....it seems that she was just quoting what 7th Dayers believe....I could be wrong, but I do non't think that @UnderGrace believes that personally.....I have not read whole thread (as a qualifier) and I have never heard her say that.....

Just saying brother

 

[UnderGrace]

Undergrace,
I have absolutely no issues with you personally.
None.

However, on a purely doctrinal level, it would seem that if Michael the archangel was NOT a created being, then he would be eternal, and thus, by definition, he would be self-existent rather than contingent. If something other than God is self-existent, this creates EXTRAORDINARY problems with the very nature of God himself. Self-existence logically implies the property of NECESSITY, the property of NECESSARY BEING... so we are ascribing to Michael the property of necessary being, a property which is theologically ascribed only to God, and a property which, if applied to Michael, and I think we can quickly show to be logically untenable without even opening the Bible.

This is an absolutely enormous theological and philosophical issue.

This just a huge, huge, issue.

I don't have any issues with you personally.
But this view is just extraordinarily problematic.
It is just off the charts.

.

Mr. Maxwell, I am very glad you have no issues with me.

I do not believe in this SDA doctrine I was just looking at it from their church web site for information purposes, CARM is fine I just wanted to add what the church itself actually states on the issue.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

To further elaborate from their web site from an SDA website, their doctrine is different than SJW

We emphatically reject the idea set forth in this question, and the position held by the Jehovah's Witnesses. We do not believe that Christ is a created being. We, as a people, have not considered the identification of Michael of sufficient prominence to dwell upon it at length either in our literature or in our preaching. But we do have clear views on the subject, and are prepared to set them forth. And our views concerning Michael, it might be added, have been held by various eminent scholars through the centuries. We are therefore not alone in our understanding.

We believe that the term "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. But such a view does not in any way conflict with our belief in His full deity and eternal pre-existence, nor does it in the least disparage His person and work.

72​

Michael is referred to in the book of Jude as the archangel. And were it not for other Scripture references, which present Him in another relationship, one might at first conclude that He was a created being, as are the angels in general. We believe, however, that those other relationships indicate His real status, and that, in addition, He serves as supreme leader of the angelic hosts. But His serving in that capacity does not make Him a created angel. A number of important factors must be considered in a study of this question.

Link

This is an accurate portrayal of their view but I’m guessing that they are omitting the origins of the teaching which relate to the Arian or Semi-Arian beliefs of their founders that led them to have a low view of Jesus’ deity. There’s still some question on their beliefs concerning the Trinity. The ex-SDAs I know say they are tri-theists. One current SDA pastor told me he doesn’t believe in the “Roman Catholic Trinity” with a hint that the RC view is wrong. Since evangelicals have the same view of the Trinity as evangelicals that means they deny the Trinity.

I have one nice SDA friend that doubts the Trinity sadly. I’m hoping he changes from that. He is young so perhaps he will.

 

[UnderGrace]

I am confused migo.....it seems that she was just quoting what 7th Dayers believe....I could be wrong, but I do non't think that @UnderGrace believes that personally.....I have not read whole thread (as a qualifier) and I have never heard her say that.....

Just saying brother

Yes this was new to me ...just learned about it today.

 

[UnderGrace]

This is an accurate portrayal of their view but I’m guessing that they are omitting the origins of the teaching which relate to the Arian or Semi-Arian beliefs of their founders that led them to have a low view of Jesus’ deity. There’s still some question on their beliefs concerning the Trinity. The ex-SDAs I know say they are tri-theists. One current SDA pastor told me he doesn’t believe in the “Roman Catholic Trinity” with a hint that the RC view is wrong. Since evangelicals have the same view of the Trinity as evangelicals that means they deny the Trinity.

I have one nice SDA friend that doubts the Trinity sadly. I’m hoping he changes from that. He is young so perhaps he will.

I will admit I did not read all the information on the web site ... I started getting cross eyed trying to follow along.

 

[maxwel]

Mr. Maxwell, I am very glad you have no issues with me.

I do not believe in this SDA doctrine I was just looking at it from their church web site for information purposes, CARM is fine I just wanted to add what the church itself actually states on the issue.

LOL


I completely missed that part of the post.
My apologies.

The thing about Michael just sent shock waves through my entire body, lol.
I think I had a seizure.

Anyway...
I'm sure we have some perfectly nice people around here that DO believe those things about Michael.
And we should REALLY REALLY think through all the implications.
Sometimes very nice people, even people we dearly love, simply haven't thought through all the implications of a thing.

It happens.

..