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.
i am employed as an analyst.
it is actually kind of my business to critically examine complex systems.
you got all that from the fact she has a medical condition of the body and takes medicine for it?
so your opinion is that anyone who takes medicine is an unbeliever?
because it is already a settled question.
"to which of the angels did He ever say?"
we already have hundreds of those threads, lol
it's one of the 'given' squares on CC bingo cards.
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.
I always have a strange question. If God is God, is Jesus the archangel? or God is God and Jesus is God too?
What do you think and why do you believe this?
This is about faith, if I tell you what I believe, will you automatically believe this?
Yep. Michael = Son of the Father, and is therefore eternal and uncreated Deity (God).
Thank you for the opportunity to share that. I'm out, permanently.
That would be a shame because, even though I may not agree with everything you believe, you add a lot to this venue.
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.
<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.
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.
""These Things Saith the Amen." This is, then, the final message to the churches before the close of probation. The description given of the indifferent Laodiceans is fearful and startling. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied, for the Witness is "faithful and true." Moreover, He is "the beginning of the creation of God." Some attempt by this language to uphold the error that Christ is a created being, dating His existence anterior to that of any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God. But the language does not imply that He was created; for the words, "the beginning of the creation," may simply signify that the work of creation, strictly speaking, was begun by Him. "Without Him was not anything made." Others, however, and more properly we think, take the word {GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT}, arche, to mean the "agent" or "efficient cause," which is one of the definitions of the word, understanding that Christ is the agent through whom God has created all things. " (DANIEL AND THE REVELATION By URIAH SMITH, page 153 )