If Jesus was Michael than why did he not rebuke Satan himself?

[TheLearner]

This is a christian forum not a JW forum

So none of us think Jesus was, He is.
And none of us think Michael was crucified in Christs place.

Good question tho!
Dunno how those guys would answer

I think there are SDA here that believe that.

 

[TheLearner]

read to here

 

[seed_time_harvest]

What scripture do people that believe Michael was JESUS use to come up with that.

 

[dcontroversal]

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil and disputing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke thee!”

Matthew 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil, and he departed out of him, and the child was cured from that very hour.

If Jesus was Michael than why did he not rebuke Satan himself?

A very astute observation.......! And to add....it seems that only false religions and the unlearned try to peddle that the Arch angel MICHAEL is or was JESUS.....

Good point migo

 

[TheLearner]

What scripture do people that believe Michael was JESUS use to come up with that.

Those were posted somewhere in this thread.

VIII. Summary of the Evidence

1. Terms used concerning Christ are similar to those used or Michael: (a) of Christ, as "Prince of princes," as "prince of the host," as "Messiah the Prince," and as the "Prince of life"; (b) of Michael, as "your prince," and as the "great prince."

2. As archangel is used of Michael, so is archegos and archon used of Christ. Thus: Christ is the archegos—the "captain", (Heb. 2:10); the "author" (Heb. 12:2); the "Prince" (Acts 3:15).

83

3. The beginning of the great controversy between Christ (Michael) and Satan is seen in Revelation 12:7-10.

4. Michael exercises the same prerogative as does Jehovah when He says to Satan, "The Lord rebuke thee."

5. Michael is equated with Christ by many Bible scholars.

From the foregoing it will be seen that our concept of Michael, as just another title for the Lord Jesus Christ, is vastly different from the views of others who teach that Michael is merely a created, angelic being and not the Eternal Word of God. In direct contrast to such a depreciating Christology, Seventh-day Adventists hold that Jesus is "very God of very God, of the same substance as the Father"—coequal, coexistent, and coeternal with God the Father. We believe that there never was a time when Christ was not. He is God forevermore, His life being "original, unborrowed, underived."

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q08.htm

 

[TheLearner]

A very astute observation.......! And to add....it seems that only false religions and the unlearned try to peddle that the Arch angel MICHAEL is or was JESUS.....

Good point migo

Back when SDA got started they were semi-arains and arains in theology. The Arians denied the deity of Christ.
The semi-arains believes that He was literally born before creation. Some of them were Urah Smith editor of their newsletter and publisher, James Smith, Mrs White Husband and others.

 

[posthuman]

I think there are SDA here that believe that.

thanks, i did not know they teach that -- i thought it was only a JW belief

is it weird i didn't know? you're right we do have SDA here - i guess this isn't something they often mention.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Michael the archangel, IS NOT JESUS.. He is only an archangel, that's all..

 

[posthuman]

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil and disputing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke thee!”

Matthew 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil, and he departed out of him, and the child was cured from that very hour.

If Jesus was Michael than why did he not rebuke Satan himself?

Jesus also rebuked Satan in the wilderness - Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4

 

[cv5]

The disputed Moses body happen before Jesus become flesh. I believe Moses was 1300 years before Jesus become human

You are off a little. The Exodus occurred on 1605 BC within a very very narrow margin of error.
Far older than most Bibles and Bible commmentors would care to indicate. This due to poor scholarship.
All of the data is there. You simply need to compile it.

 

[garee]

SDA and JWs claim that Jesus was Michael. Both are wrong.
Michael as a created being deferred to God to deal with Satan.
Jesus as God dealt with Satan himself.

The question was addressed to SDA Adventists here because it refutes their position in a nutshell.

Hope this helps,
Daniel

The word angel messenger is used of men seen as well as the unseen creation .The latter are not subject to salvation. We should be care full when entertaining or visiting another Christian they might have a message from God as a angel .Or perhaps they were sent of God to receive help another in their time of need. Like when a Jehovah witness shows up as t the door . they need to hear the message of the gospel

Hebrews 13:2Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

The word for "messenger" is mal'akh, the Greek aggelos. This may be a human messenger or a messenger of God, an angel. The context must decide the proper understanding. In Haggai 1:13 the prophet is called God's messenger;

Apostles the "sent ones" with no other meaning attached to the word are considered angels, which represent the message of the gospel Not attributed to the their flesh . God is not served by human hands in any way shape or form.

 

[garee]

Jesus also rebuked Satan in the wilderness - Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4

Yes lessons of faith. Or like when Peter committed blasphemy in respect to the Son of man, Jesus, seen. I beleive to help us walk or understand by faith, the unseen . The father put his words on the lips of Jesus the Son of man, as the Lord rebuking not in respect to that seen. The father working with in the Son of man he said to Peter get behind me Satan you have the thing seen in mind "flesh and blood" and not the unseen things of God . . . .things of faith. Another lesson of faith .How we can hear what God not seen says to the churches and not man like Peter seen? .

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.Mathew 16:22-23

Peter was forgiven of His blasphemy against the Son of man Jesus .

 

[garee]

The translation of Michael into English is "Who is like God"

Yes, to represent the flesh of the Son of man, Jesus. A rhetorical picture of "Who is like our unseen God?" Jesus as the Son of man refused to stand in the holy unseen place of the father as the good master (the hidden glory of God) . Refused to be recognized as infallible interpreter called a daysman. (Pope)

Jesus said God alone "not seen" is good. One is our Master our Father in heaven The word good is the fingerprint of Him not seen . No flesh could stand in the holy unseen place of his eternal glory (The abomination of desecration.)

 

[Dino246]

Yes, to represent the flesh of the Son of man, Jesus. A rhetorical picture of "Who is like our unseen God?" Jesus as the Son of man refused to stand in the holy unseen place of the father as the good master (the hidden glory of God) . Refused to be recognized as infallible interpreter called a daysman. (Pope)

Jesus said God alone "not seen" is good. One is our Master our Father in heaven The word good is the fingerprint of Him not seen . No flesh could stand in the holy unseen place of his eternal glory (The abomination of desecration.)

Jesus did not refuse to "stand in the holy place", nor did He refuse to be recognized as an "infallible interpreter". Nothing in Scripture supports such ideas. In contrast, Scripture specifically calls Jesus the mediator in 1 Timothy 2:5 and three times in Hebrews.

You repeatedly use the term, "daysman", apparently not realizing that it is both meaningless to most readers, and has nothing to do with a pope. The term appears only once in Scripture, in Job, and Jesus is not part of the context.

If you're going to make theological assertions, make certain that they are clearly supported by the text of Scripture.

 

[garee]

Jesus did not refuse to "stand in the holy place", nor did He refuse to be recognized as an "infallible interpreter". Nothing in Scripture supports such ideas. In contrast, Scripture specifically calls Jesus the mediator in 1 Timothy 2:5 and three times in Hebrews.

You repeatedly use the term, "daysman", apparently not realizing that it is both meaningless to most readers, and has nothing to do with a pope. The term appears only once in Scripture, in Job, and Jesus is not part of the context.

If you're going to make theological assertions, make certain that they are clearly supported by the text of Scripture.

Hi thanks for the reply.

They are my offerings .You can check them out. If you find apposing portions you can offer.

Jesus as the Son of man seen did refuse in more than one way to not stand in the unseen Holy place of God's glory or called the abomination of desecration. (the place as our source of faith not of our own selves) the invisible things of God the wrath revealed..

God shows his anger from heaven against all the evil and wrong things that people do. Their evil lives hide the truth they have. This makes God angry because they have been shown what he is like. Yes, God has made it clear to them.There are things about God that people cannot see—his eternal power and all that makes him God. But since the beginning of the world, those things have been easy for people to understand. They are made clear in what God has made. So people have no excuse for the evil they do. Romans 1:18-19

The place he refused to stand in is a place people cannot see.(above) The time of reformation had come the pagan form of government as a temporal sign against the unbelieving Jew used to represent unbelief (no faith that comes from hearing God) in mankind as a whole.

Mark 10:17-19 King James Version (KJV)And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but "one", that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

The law of the fathers. . . Pharisees with Sadducees utilized what the Bible calls a "daysman" to lord over the faith ( belief system) of the non vereable pew sitters trusting in what the eyes see. They stood in the abomination of desecration. Men seeking the approval of men refusing to walk by faith .

In the portion of scripture where God is informing us our mediator is Christ Jesus. . . it is in respect to the Christ not seen the Holy Spirit of God and not the Son of man, Jesus seen . In that way we are to call no man on earth Master (Rabbi) as a fleshly infallible interpreter, set between God not seen and man as umpire (Pope)

Jesus would not take on the position of a Pope or daysman . When men would try and worship Him in respect to the things seen he would call them faithless using Thomas' a picture of a paganism

“But you must not be called ‘Teacher.’ You are all equal as brothers and sisters. You have only one Teacher. And don’t call anyone on earth ‘Father.’ You have one Father. He is in heaven. And you should not be called ‘Master.’ You have only one Master, the Messiah. Mathew 23:8-9

 

[Dino246]

Jesus as the Son of man seen did refuse in more than one way to not stand in the unseen Holy place of God's glory or called the abomination of desecration. (the place as our source of faith not of our own selves) the invisible things of God the wrath revealed..

Please take a class in basic English grammar.

The abomination of desecration is not Jesus standing in the holy place. That idea is just wacky.

The place he refused to stand in is a place people cannot see.(above) The time of reformation had come the pagan form of government as a temporal sign against the unbelieving Jew used to represent unbelief (no faith that comes from hearing God) in mankind as a whole.

Again, Jesus didn't refuse to stand in the holy place. Your whole premise is flawed, and your conclusion is simply wrong.

The law of the fathers. . . Pharisees with Sadducees utilized what the Bible calls a "daysman" to lord over the faith ( belief system) of the non vereable pew sitters trusting in what the eyes see. They stood in the abomination of desecration. Men seeking the approval of men refusing to walk by faith .

"Daysman" is only used in Job; NEVER in the context of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Your use of it is simply wrong.

In the portion of scripture where God is informing us our mediator is Christ Jesus. . . it is in respect to the Christ not seen the Holy Spirit of God and not the Son of man, Jesus seen .

Jesus was already dead and resurrected when that passage was written. That means that the mediator is the resurrected Jesus at the right hand of the Father, not Jesus in the flesh on earth.

Jesus would not take on the position of a Pope or daysman . When men would try and worship Him in respect to the things seen he would call them faithless using Thomas' a picture of a paganism

Jesus wasn't thinking "pope" or "daysman". Those are your additions. Thomas isn't a picture of paganism; he was a beloved disciple who wanted evidence, not hearsay. Jesus accepted Thomas' worship without further comment.

“But you must not be called ‘Teacher.’ You are all equal as brothers and sisters. You have only one Teacher. And don’t call anyone on earth ‘Father.’ You have one Father. He is in heaven. And you should not be called ‘Master.’ You have only one Master, the Messiah. Mathew 23:8-9

You keep quoting this passage, apparently not realizing its irrelevance to your argument.

 

[posthuman]

When men would try and worship Him in respect to the things seen he would call them faithless using Thomas' a picture of a paganism

Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou believest ​

(John 20:29) ​

​

Jesus calls Thomas faithful - He says, Thomas believes
belief is the opposite of unbelief.

 

[SoulWeaver]

Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou believest ​

(John 20:29) ​

​

Jesus calls Thomas faithful - He says, Thomas believes
belief is the opposite of unbelief.

Agreed, Thomas repented there from unbelief, and was instantly forgiven.
He earlier declared resolution that he would "not believe, unless he puts his fingers into the print of the nails" etc. but upon hearing Jesus' offer to do so, he had a change of heart and immediately dropped doubting.
He does not proceed to "check" if this was really Jesus, but says instead "My Lord and my God!"

 

[Magenta]

Excellent point. The following is what I posted on the other thread regarding Michael the arc-angel being Jesus Christ. Personally I consider this one of the best proofs of Jesus Christ being God incarnate, pre-existing His incarnation and of course that He is not an angel. Btw, this was posted to kneemailer.

So kneemailer do you agree with what these people posted, that Jesus Christ is Michael the arc angel? I am also so glad you posted Malachi 3:1 because it is one of my favorite verses and the verse is loaded with information.

Malachi 3:1

 

[garee]

Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou believest ​

(John 20:29) ​

​

Jesus calls Thomas faithful - He says, Thomas believes
belief is the opposite of unbelief.

Walking by sight is not the kind of belief that come by faith. Faith represents the unseen eternal. Faithless is the opposite of believing .Like that of the foolish Galatians . Foolish no provision of God in ones thoughts (no faith coming from the unseen)

John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.