Do SDA believe Michael is God?
- Thread starter TheLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, I simply understand the structure of scripture as a whole and thus use the word in both local and global senses.
See for yourself:
https://archive.org/details/michael...-the-revelation-compared-7-branch-candlestick
https://ia903207.us.archive.org/6/i...7 Vs 13 Thy Way O God Is In The Sanctuary.jpg
See for yourself:
https://archive.org/details/michael...-the-revelation-compared-7-branch-candlestick
https://ia903207.us.archive.org/6/i...7 Vs 13 Thy Way O God Is In The Sanctuary.jpg
-
1
- Show all
I think there are some the selective interpretations with your proof texts.
with "chief prince" of Daniel 10:13 you say it is Jesus. "chief" is הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים hā-ri-šō-nîm which is used as elder in other verses. So why is "chief" the eldest - Jesus. Assuming the angel talking to Daniel is "middle aged" in the angelic sense, I assume there are many more older/powerful spiritual beings then he. Why the eldest, Jesus?
If "prince" is the link, why not God ? Daniel 8:25 "Prince of princes". Yet you choose Jesus "Prince of Peace."
In Revelation 12, you say Michael (Jesus) was the leader of the heavenly host. But He was also the manchild pursued by the beast. Was this specified that the manchild and Michael was the same, as it is the Book of Revelation (all mysteries revealed for the benefit our salvation). The 7 headed dragon, the beast, and the whore was revealed why not the secret identity of Jesus. Once again, it is the archangel reference I suspect.
How many times was Jesus referred to as archon, archo? I will answer, 0. Jesus is King not an archon.
In Malachi 3:1, to refute that angelic spirits are all created, you claim because Jesus was classified as an angel that was not created, that all angels are uncreated. It is clear that all things are created by God by means of Jesus for Jesus. This is not eisegesis but just being contradictorian.
Jude 1:9 - Jude was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and cites the Michael, satan, Moses affair and not once mentions Jesus is Michael. That does not make sense as Apostles are chosen by God to spread the news.
with "chief prince" of Daniel 10:13 you say it is Jesus. "chief" is הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים hā-ri-šō-nîm which is used as elder in other verses. So why is "chief" the eldest - Jesus. Assuming the angel talking to Daniel is "middle aged" in the angelic sense, I assume there are many more older/powerful spiritual beings then he. Why the eldest, Jesus?
If "prince" is the link, why not God ? Daniel 8:25 "Prince of princes". Yet you choose Jesus "Prince of Peace."
In Revelation 12, you say Michael (Jesus) was the leader of the heavenly host. But He was also the manchild pursued by the beast. Was this specified that the manchild and Michael was the same, as it is the Book of Revelation (all mysteries revealed for the benefit our salvation). The 7 headed dragon, the beast, and the whore was revealed why not the secret identity of Jesus. Once again, it is the archangel reference I suspect.
How many times was Jesus referred to as archon, archo? I will answer, 0. Jesus is King not an archon.
In Malachi 3:1, to refute that angelic spirits are all created, you claim because Jesus was classified as an angel that was not created, that all angels are uncreated. It is clear that all things are created by God by means of Jesus for Jesus. This is not eisegesis but just being contradictorian.
Jude 1:9 - Jude was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and cites the Michael, satan, Moses affair and not once mentions Jesus is Michael. That does not make sense as Apostles are chosen by God to spread the news.
-
1
- Show all
The Hebrew word "mi", like Hebrew "mah" is used in several ways not merely interrogative, but also oblique.
For instance see Ecclesiastes 1:9, 3:15; Esther 8:1; Proverbs 9:13; Nehemiah 2:12; Job 13:13; 1 Samuel 19:3; 2 Samuel 18:22,23; Numbers 23:3, etc.
While I stated that Michael means one is who is God, this does not mean I do not also simultaneously understand it in interrogative, Who is like unto God?
Every time the devil confronts Michael/Son of God, he confronts this meaning/question in the Son, and in every instance must acknowledge that the only one like unto God the Father is not himself, but is definitional of the Son/Michael.
As the Bible says, "as his name is, so is he". The Bible names are all representative of character. The Son/Michael always represents the Father, and thus the name is both interrogative (question) and statement of the character, as the Son is the "express image" of the Father's person.
Attempting to translate Michael from Hebrew to koine Greek as a question, doesn't work, see Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7, but if translated as not a question, it does work. Try it.
There are many books which show both uses.
Again, I am not saying it is not also a question when we come into contact with the Son/Michael, but the answer is found in the same, being both beginning and ending.
For instance see Ecclesiastes 1:9, 3:15; Esther 8:1; Proverbs 9:13; Nehemiah 2:12; Job 13:13; 1 Samuel 19:3; 2 Samuel 18:22,23; Numbers 23:3, etc.
While I stated that Michael means one is who is God, this does not mean I do not also simultaneously understand it in interrogative, Who is like unto God?
Every time the devil confronts Michael/Son of God, he confronts this meaning/question in the Son, and in every instance must acknowledge that the only one like unto God the Father is not himself, but is definitional of the Son/Michael.
As the Bible says, "as his name is, so is he". The Bible names are all representative of character. The Son/Michael always represents the Father, and thus the name is both interrogative (question) and statement of the character, as the Son is the "express image" of the Father's person.
Attempting to translate Michael from Hebrew to koine Greek as a question, doesn't work, see Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7, but if translated as not a question, it does work. Try it.
There are many books which show both uses.
Again, I am not saying it is not also a question when we come into contact with the Son/Michael, but the answer is found in the same, being both beginning and ending.
Jude is referring to an OT event. This is why he uses the OT name of the Son when as messenger for the Father. The name "Jesus" was the name given in the NT for the Son after taking on the likeness of sinful flesh of mankind.
Why would Jude refer to the OT event by the NT name of the Son after taking on the likeness of sinful flesh? Jude is obviously referring to the time of the death of Moses, when the Angel of the LORD (Michael archangel, Son (LORD) of the Father (LORD)) was present amongst them personally, leading them into the Promised Land, and personally buried Moses and knew the exact location to return and resurrect him?
Why would Jude refer to the OT event by the NT name of the Son after taking on the likeness of sinful flesh? Jude is obviously referring to the time of the death of Moses, when the Angel of the LORD (Michael archangel, Son (LORD) of the Father (LORD)) was present amongst them personally, leading them into the Promised Land, and personally buried Moses and knew the exact location to return and resurrect him?
Strong's Greek 3762. oudeis, ... not one, none" categorically excludes, declaring as a fact that no valid example exists; and 3761. oude,... and not, neither" which are used in Acts 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
And before you answer that Jesus was the name given to Him after He took on flesh, remember that He said, "before Abraham was, I am" and not, "before Abraham was, I was Michael." Why not?
And before you answer that Jesus was the name given to Him after He took on flesh, remember that He said, "before Abraham was, I am" and not, "before Abraham was, I was Michael." Why not?