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.
Hebrews 13:8 Berean Study Bible
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
It means the teaching of Jesus is constant through out time. If Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament, and was in Daniels Prophecy, then there are no distinctions in teaching between precarnate, incarnate and resurrected states of Jesus. Jesus was not coy about who he was, is and will be. He did not speak of it to his Apostles. In other words, Jude was not informed that Jesus was Michael of old.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
It means the teaching of Jesus is constant through out time. If Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament, and was in Daniels Prophecy, then there are no distinctions in teaching between precarnate, incarnate and resurrected states of Jesus. Jesus was not coy about who he was, is and will be. He did not speak of it to his Apostles. In other words, Jude was not informed that Jesus was Michael of old.
-
2
- Show all
Let me just take the sole of my shoe out of my mouth and say "smarty pants!"
But to continue the argument,
With Heb 9:11, the "arch" priest is very specific. It describes Jesus ascension by merit of His Own Blood in the Eyes of God. At the time of of Daniel, was Michael a priest of the angelic sense?
At the time of Jesus's ascension there were only 24 seats of weeping elders before the Throne - no arch priest the 25th seat. When was the 25th seat removed? So the prescription of "arch" within the spectrum of priesthood was in potentia not in actuality during Daniel's time.
Daniel 7:13-14 speaks of the coming of Jesus when He Given eternal dominion. So in the interim He fights princes of the ancient hegemons? Jesus as Scion is the Inheritor of the Host. Surely the Host has generals other than he to battle rebel generals of the created sort.
After Ascension, Jesus is doubly smeared as King and High Priest. To say Jesus is Chief is an understatement. Like saying Einstein was a good scientist equals good scientists are Einsteins. Jesus is Chief of angels equals all chief of angels are Jesus. Your logic flows one way. More handwaving is required to link archangel Michael with Jesus.
With Revelation 3:14, Jesus was described as the Eldest and the Means of Creation. But like the argument of "chief" is הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים hā-ri-šō-nîm why did you chose the eldest and not just an elder.
The term arche G746, has the capacity to be called ruler, but none was ascribed to Jesus. Which was my point stuck to my shoe!
As there is no explicit statement plainly saying that Jesus is Michael, it is an exercise in aesthetics not logic.
But to continue the argument,
With Heb 9:11, the "arch" priest is very specific. It describes Jesus ascension by merit of His Own Blood in the Eyes of God. At the time of of Daniel, was Michael a priest of the angelic sense?
At the time of Jesus's ascension there were only 24 seats of weeping elders before the Throne - no arch priest the 25th seat. When was the 25th seat removed? So the prescription of "arch" within the spectrum of priesthood was in potentia not in actuality during Daniel's time.
Daniel 7:13-14 speaks of the coming of Jesus when He Given eternal dominion. So in the interim He fights princes of the ancient hegemons? Jesus as Scion is the Inheritor of the Host. Surely the Host has generals other than he to battle rebel generals of the created sort.
After Ascension, Jesus is doubly smeared as King and High Priest. To say Jesus is Chief is an understatement. Like saying Einstein was a good scientist equals good scientists are Einsteins. Jesus is Chief of angels equals all chief of angels are Jesus. Your logic flows one way. More handwaving is required to link archangel Michael with Jesus.
With Revelation 3:14, Jesus was described as the Eldest and the Means of Creation. But like the argument of "chief" is הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים hā-ri-šō-nîm why did you chose the eldest and not just an elder.
The term arche G746, has the capacity to be called ruler, but none was ascribed to Jesus. Which was my point stuck to my shoe!
As there is no explicit statement plainly saying that Jesus is Michael, it is an exercise in aesthetics not logic.
<This makes me especially appreciate that the LORD's commands to 'write this in a book' considering all the oral *extra biblical" traditions that were, have been and will be, knowledge posing as wisdom, in constant circulation until the dyslexia of the supercilious collective is remedied. Then it shall be vividly clear to all what is wisdom and what has just been widsom all along.
-
1
- Show all
Let me just take the sole of my shoe out of my mouth and say "smarty pants!"
But to continue the argument,
With Heb 9:11, the "arch" priest is very specific. It describes Jesus ascension by merit of His Own Blood in the Eyes of God. At the time of of Daniel, was Michael a priest of the angelic sense?
At the time of Jesus's ascension there were only 24 seats of weeping elders before the Throne - no arch priest the 25th seat. When was the 25th seat removed? So the prescription of "arch" within the spectrum of priesthood was in potentia not in actuality during Daniel's time.
Daniel 7:13-14 speaks of the coming of Jesus when He Given eternal dominion. So in the interim He fights princes of the ancient hegemons? Jesus as Scion is the Inheritor of the Host. Surely the Host has generals other than he to battle rebel generals of the created sort.
After Ascension, Jesus is doubly smeared as King and High Priest. To say Jesus is Chief is an understatement. Like saying Einstein was a good scientist equals good scientists are Einsteins. Jesus is Chief of angels equals all chief of angels are Jesus. Your logic flows one way. More handwaving is required to link archangel Michael with Jesus.
With Revelation 3:14, Jesus was described as the Eldest and the Means of Creation. But like the argument of "chief" is הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים hā-ri-šō-nîm why did you chose the eldest and not just an elder.
The term arche G746, has the capacity to be called ruler, but none was ascribed to Jesus. Which was my point stuck to my shoe!
As there is no explicit statement plainly saying that Jesus is Michael, it is an exercise in aesthetics not logic.
But to continue the argument,
With Heb 9:11, the "arch" priest is very specific. It describes Jesus ascension by merit of His Own Blood in the Eyes of God. At the time of of Daniel, was Michael a priest of the angelic sense?
At the time of Jesus's ascension there were only 24 seats of weeping elders before the Throne - no arch priest the 25th seat. When was the 25th seat removed? So the prescription of "arch" within the spectrum of priesthood was in potentia not in actuality during Daniel's time.
Daniel 7:13-14 speaks of the coming of Jesus when He Given eternal dominion. So in the interim He fights princes of the ancient hegemons? Jesus as Scion is the Inheritor of the Host. Surely the Host has generals other than he to battle rebel generals of the created sort.
After Ascension, Jesus is doubly smeared as King and High Priest. To say Jesus is Chief is an understatement. Like saying Einstein was a good scientist equals good scientists are Einsteins. Jesus is Chief of angels equals all chief of angels are Jesus. Your logic flows one way. More handwaving is required to link archangel Michael with Jesus.
With Revelation 3:14, Jesus was described as the Eldest and the Means of Creation. But like the argument of "chief" is הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים hā-ri-šō-nîm why did you chose the eldest and not just an elder.
The term arche G746, has the capacity to be called ruler, but none was ascribed to Jesus. Which was my point stuck to my shoe!
As there is no explicit statement plainly saying that Jesus is Michael, it is an exercise in aesthetics not logic.