Author Topic: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.  (Read 7664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #35 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:38:57 »
>"There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21). -- William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.

Full article with references: http://books.google.com/books?id=7DAHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA158&dq=%22There+seems+good+reason+for+regarding+Michael+as+the+Messiah.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AXIMT5XiF4aEsAL7iNzzBQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22There%20seems%20good%20reason%20for%20regarding%20Michael%20as%20the%20Messiah.%22&f=false


Form the above:

"On the authority of the first of these texts [presumably Dan. 10:13-21] the Jews have made Michael not only one if the [ _ ]'seven'[ _ ] archangels, but the chief of them; and on the authority of all three [texts] the Christian church has been disposed to concur in this impression. ... and of these classes [of angels] Michael is the head of the first, and therefore chief of all the archangels (Sepher Othioth, fol. 16)."

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16650
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #36 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:39:06 »
If you read thru the quotes I have above you will see who the princes are that Michael was one of.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16650
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #37 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:42:36 »
DJC - I would be very cautious using Christian sources to quote Jewish sources.  They are notoriously inaccurate. (and even worse with islamic sources)

Read the Jewish texts yourself, or compilations on traditional Jewish sites.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #38 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:43:18 »
>The appropriate translation for Michael is not "one who is God" it is "one who is like God".

Note the number of experts in linguistics that support that claim.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #39 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:44:28 »
>DJC - I would be very cautious using Christian sources to quote Jewish sources.  They are notoriously inaccurate.

Now all you have to do is prove that they are "notoriously inaccurate" here.  Wettstein comes highly recommended.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #39 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:44:28 »



Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #40 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:51:17 »
>The appropriate translation for Michael is not "one who is God" it is "one who is like God".

Note the number of experts in linguistics that support that claim.

You ignored everything else. Again. Noted.

Offline DaveW

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16650
  • Manna: 199
  • Gender: Male
  • carrying Torah scroll
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #41 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:52:25 »
OK - if your christian source is so good why do the traditional Jewish sources only list 4 archangels when your source says there is seven?  


The places I am quoting source their texts back to the Talmuds. If you follow the links, they list the references.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #42 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:54:58 »
Where exactly are the linguistic experts listed? Which reply I think I missed them.


Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #44 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:58:45 »
>The appropriate translation for Michael is not "one who is God" it is "one who is like God".

Note the number of experts in linguistics that support that claim.

You ignored everything else. Again. Noted.
No one is required to deal with each and every single point.  You made a claim; I noted the lack of support for that claim.  Deal with it.  It is duly noted that you couldn't.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #45 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 11:59:59 »
>OK - if your christian source is so good why do the traditional Jewish sources only list 4 archangels when your source says there is seven? 

Good question.  Look at the sources that were provided.

>The places I am quoting source their texts back to the Talmuds. If you follow the links, they list the references.

Likewise.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #46 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 12:02:18 »
>The appropriate translation for Michael is not "one who is God" it is "one who is like God".

Note the number of experts in linguistics that support that claim.

You ignored everything else. Again. Noted.
No one is required to deal with each and every single point.  You made a claim; I noted the lack of support for that claim.  Deal with it.  It is duly noted that you couldn't.


Evading.

You responded to the last sentence which had no correlation to the majority of my posts. Ignoring the majority and responding to one single sentence was strategic because the majority pretty much sinks this new speculation off shore.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #47 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 12:03:46 »
>Where exactly are the linguistic experts listed? Which reply I think I missed them.

I was using sarcasm--you didn't note ANY linguistic scholars in the field to support your claim.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #48 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 12:06:23 »
>Evading.

No, simple statement to fact.  If you had even taken one class in logic you would have known that.

>You responded to the last sentence which had no correlation to the majority of my posts.

Again, I'm not required to deal with each and every claim in your post (singular) that I was responding to.  Haven't you taken any classes in logic?

>the majority pretty much sinks this new speculation off shore.

Again with the claim of speculation with no proof supporting it.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #49 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 12:10:29 »
The kingdom and comings of Christ: wherein is explained the ... - Page 76
   
John Collinsworth Simmons - 1891

"There have been various opinions with reference to Michael. Without reference to these opinions, we believe Michael to be none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Twice only is the term "archangel " used in the Scripture, and each time preceded by the definite article, thus showing that there is but one archangel, and that this archangel is Michael. Jude says: "Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil," etc. Paul says (1 Thess. iv. 16): "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." Jesus says (John v. 28, 29): "All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth." Then the voice of the archangel and the voice of Jesus must be the same."

http://books.google.com/books?id=3iRIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA86&dq=%22michael+the+archangel%22&output=text#c_top

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #50 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 12:16:10 »
>Where exactly are the linguistic experts listed? Which reply I think I missed them.

I was using sarcasm--you didn't note ANY linguistic scholars in the field to support your claim.


Neither did the author but here are a few easy to reach online lexicons.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=Michael&s=References&rc=LEX

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3413

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #51 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 12:18:17 »
>Evading.

No, simple statement to fact.  If you had even taken one class in logic you would have known that.

>You responded to the last sentence which had no correlation to the majority of my posts.

Again, I'm not required to deal with each and every claim in your post (singular) that I was responding to.  Haven't you taken any classes in logic?

>the majority pretty much sinks this new speculation off shore.

Again with the claim of speculation with no proof supporting it.

What do you mean the claim of speculation its fact. God in Heaven is King not prince. The Logos is not one of a group of Chief princes.

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 2The same was in the beginning with God.


Its not Michael.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #52 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 13:06:43 »
>Neither did the author

And that would have been whom?

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #53 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 13:10:03 »
>What do you mean the claim of speculation its fact.

1) You originally claimed it was speculation.  Now you back off of that claim--good to see--should have done that abit ago.
2) Now you claim it is a fact.  Nothing in the verses cited contradict the sources I quoted (originally and subsequently).

BTW, this source http://books.google.com/books?id=ty1BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA465&dq=%22michael+the+archangel%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uIIMT73iPIThsQKOmdTxBQ&ved=0CHEQ6AEwBjgy#v=onepage&q=%22michael%20the%20archangel%22&f=false refers to a quote found in Whiston from Philo (perhaps you've heard of him?); the quote can be seen here: http://ia600308.us.archive.org/27/items/primitivechristi04whis/primitivechristi04whis.pdf

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #54 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 13:18:34 »
>What do you mean the claim of speculation its fact.

1) You originally claimed it was speculation.  Now you back off of that claim--good to see--should have done that abit ago.
2) Now you claim it is a fact.  Nothing in the verses cited contradict the sources I quoted (originally and subsequently).

BTW, this source http://books.google.com/books?id=ty1BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA465&dq=%22michael+the+archangel%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uIIMT73iPIThsQKOmdTxBQ&ved=0CHEQ6AEwBjgy#v=onepage&q=%22michael%20the%20archangel%22&f=false refers to a quote found in Whiston from Philo (perhaps you've heard of him?); the quote can be seen here: http://ia600308.us.archive.org/27/items/primitivechristi04whis/primitivechristi04whis.pdf


1. I claimed the 16000 Protestanst with no tioes to the Early Church were speculating. I see I got my wires cross when I thought you were referring to my exegesis as speculation even when I just recently provided scriptural facts which went ignored for the third time.

2. I was claiming that Jesus Christ not being Michael was fact and that the idea that He was Michale was specualtion. Poor speculation.

I also provided two lexicons to debunked the OP's  translation of Michael. Its "who is like God" NOT "who is God". One word makes a diffeence.


Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #55 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 13:33:48 »
>I claimed the 16000 [sic] Protestanst [sic] with no tioes [sic] to the Early Church were speculating.

And that is what I'm saying that you didn't provide any proof for.

>scriptural facts which went ignored for the third time.

Yep, he didn't take any courses in logic.  From Wiki (handy online source):

"A premise is a proposition that is used as the foundation for drawing conclusions. For example:

    Premise: "Apples are a type of fruit."
    Premise: "All types of fruit are food."
    Conclusion: "Therefore, apples are food."

If the conclusion is false then either one or more of the premisses is false or the process of combining the premises is logically invalid. If the premisses are true and the process is logically valid, then the conclusion must be true."

You don't have to prove each and every single premise is false.  You only have to show one and the conclusion fails.

>2. I was claiming that Jesus Christ not being Michael was fact and that the idea that He was Michale [sic] was specualtion. Poor speculation.

>I was claiming that Jesus Christ not being Michael was fact

Actually we don't claim that.  Jesus Christ didn't exist till He was born in Bethlehem.  Michael as a being predates that time.

Still no proof.  Just saying the same thing in different words.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #56 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 13:43:50 »
>I claimed the 16000 [sic] Protestanst [sic] with no tioes [sic] to the Early Church were speculating.

And that is what I'm saying that you didn't provide any proof for.

>scriptural facts which went ignored for the third time.

Yep, he didn't take any courses in logic.  From Wiki (handy online source):

"A premise is a proposition that is used as the foundation for drawing conclusions. For example:

    Premise: "Apples are a type of fruit."
    Premise: "All types of fruit are food."
    Conclusion: "Therefore, apples are food."

If the conclusion is false then either one or more of the premisses is false or the process of combining the premises is logically invalid. If the premisses are true and the process is logically valid, then the conclusion must be true."

You don't have to prove each and every single premise is false.  You only have to show one and the conclusion fails.

>2. I was claiming that Jesus Christ not being Michael was fact and that the idea that He was Michale [sic] was specualtion. Poor speculation.

>I was claiming that Jesus Christ not being Michael was fact

Actually we don't claim that.  Jesus Christ didn't exist till He was born in Bethlehem.  Michael as a being predates that time.

Still no proof.  Just saying the same thing in different words.

1. The proof is in the authors. Which are Protestant. Which didn't exist until about 1600 years after the Early Church.

2. Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ is the Logos. I quoted John 1. The Logos in Heaven is God and God in Heaven is not one of a seaprate group of chief princes.

Easy enough to refute.

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #57 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 13:52:58 »
>1. The proof is in the authors. Which are Protestant. Which didn't exist until about 1600 years after the Early Church.

And one of them (as I recently noted) cited Philo--you managed to miss that one (on purpose?)

2. Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ

That's an oxymoron.  Jesus didn't exist till He was born.  Read the OT--nowhere is God who created us, according to Gen 1 and John 1, called Jesus Christ.

===

The comments of Basil Studer are worth mentioning-

    In the early Christian writings which are still strongly influenced by Jewish tradition, a Christology is encountered which is to be located within the context of a fully developed angelology. It is called angel-christology. In this Christ appears as an angel and, accordingly, receives the traditional angelic names, such as Michael and Gabriel. Yet he is not treated as their equal. He towers above them with his colossal stature and appears as their Lord who sends them and is going to mete out judgement some day with their help. Such ideas are to be found above all in the Shepherd of Hermas, in 2 Enoch and the Recognitiones of Clement. … This angelogical description of Christ's salvation of course presupposes the biblical idea of the angel of the Lord. A tradition which understood Christ mainly as revealer of the invisible Father obviously identified him with that angel who appeared to the patriarchs and proclaimed to them the will of God. Trinity and Incarnation, pg. 37 {I bolded the sentence.}

Aloys Grillmeier states-

    But there can be no question of a substantial reduction of the Son of God to Michael. For the Son is in the end quite clearly distinguished from the archangel even though the latter stands in the place usually occupied by the Son of God. The elements of transcendence in the picture of the 'most reverend' angel, by which is meant the Son of God, go far beyond the Jewish picture of Michael. For the Jewish tradition Michael is indeed the supreme leader of the heavenly host, but it is not certain that he is also the chief of the seven archangels in the sense that the other six are his subordinates. The Shepherd of Hermas, however, quite clearly leaves this place free for Christ and in such a way as to correspond to the new figure:

    "'Have you also seen the six men and the glorious and great man in their midst who is walking round the tower and who rejected the stones from the building?' 'Yes, sir.' 'The glorious man is the Son of God, and those six are the glorious angels who support him on the right and on the left. Of these glorious angels none can enter the presence of God without him. Whoever does not receive his name will not enter the kingdom of God' (Sim. IX, 12, 7-8).

    Here it is quite clear that the Son of God is meant and that as such he is superior to the six chief angels. These angels are his entourage. He does not stand like Michael as primus inter pares, for he is the way to God even for the angels! Michael is not given such a role among the archangels, even in his capacity as escort of souls. Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 1, pgs. 49-50. {all emphasis mine}

found online at http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html
« Last Edit: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 14:00:03 by djconklin »

Offline djconklin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 986
  • Manna: 11
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #58 on: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 14:04:42 »
"I shall give you another testimony, my friends, said I, from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion, he calls himself Captain." (Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho," Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, page 227)

Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

For more quotes see http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2011/06/scholars-quotes-concerning-jesus-as.html.

===

On one web page it is claimed: "An indication that Church "Father" Hermas believed that Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel are one and the same is found at Pastor of Hermas, Book Third, Similitude 8th, Chapter 3. Hermas is a Second Century C.E. source."

"I said to him, "Sir, explain to me what this tree means, for I am perplexed about it, because, after so many branches have been cut off, it continues sound, and nothing appears to have been cut away from it. By this, now, I am perplexed." "Listen," he said: "This great tree [319] that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains, and all the earth, is the law of God that was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God, [320] proclaimed to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation, and have believed upon Him. And the great and glorious angel Michael is he who has authority over this people, and governs them; [321] for this is he who gave them the law [322] into the hearts of believers: he accordingly superintends them to whom he gave it, to see if they have kept the same. ..."
« Last Edit: Tue Jan 10, 2012 - 14:15:31 by djconklin »

Offline Hobie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Manna: 17

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9482
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #60 on: Wed Oct 31, 2018 - 14:08:20 »
For some reason, the understanding of Christ pre-incarnate is very controversial, as people get confused with the "Title" which refer to Jesus. Now, Jesus is NOT a created Angel. He is fully Man, fully God, the Messiah, the Christ, and Lord and Saviour. Jesus is Eternal. Jesus was never created. Jesus is Eternal as the Father and Holy Spirit are Eternal. Jesus has always been and always will be.
Hobie are still confused on the person of Jesus Christ as this post reveals? You are correct, Jesus is not a created angel~and NEITHER was God's Son pre-incarnate before Luke's account of the Spirit conceiving a Son in the womb of a virgin named Mary.
Quote from: Hobie Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 12:02:12
Jesus is Eternal as the Father and Holy Spirit are Eternal.
The statement is true ONLY in this sense~in Jesus' complex nature of being fully God, the true God, the Everlasting Father of all things, and fully man, is this statement true.
Quote
Jesus is Eternal
Is NOT a true statement~he WAS CONCEIVED in the womb of a virgin named Mary~that's God's testimony. UNTIL he was conceived God did not have a Son, ONLY in his eternal purposes did he purposed to have one.
Quote
Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
That a false doctrine that the Jehovah Witnesses hold to, in their attempt to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. If Jesus CHRIST had a beginning, then he is NOT God, but, according to the scriptures the Word in the beginning which was GOD, JOINED HIMSELF to the tabernacle of the Son of God, thus is the saying true that God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, (for the first time) preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received UP TO GLORY per acts chapter one.
Quote
Michael the Archangel “one who is God
There in Daniel 12 and Revelation 12 Michael is an ANGEL over other angles and his name is MICHAEL, NOT Jesus! Jesus was not born in Daniel 12, not until Luke chapter two. It's really not that deep, one just needs to break off from the traditons of men, and all creeds~and search for bible truths IN THE SCRIPTURES.

Is Jesus eternal ONLY in his DIVINE NATURE as the I' AM THAT I' AM? His SONSHIP as the Son of man had a beginning in a womb of Mary his earthly mother.
« Last Edit: Wed Oct 31, 2018 - 14:11:52 by RB »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12483
  • Manna: 319
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #61 on: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 07:12:15 »
The man, Jesus, was born, lived and died about 2000 years ago.  The Spirit, Jesus or however you wish to designate Him, is eternal. 

Offline Hobie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Manna: 17
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #62 on: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 13:21:59 »
Hobie are still confused on the person of Jesus Christ as this post reveals? You are correct, Jesus is not a created angel~and NEITHER was God's Son pre-incarnate before Luke's account of the Spirit conceiving a Son in the womb of a virgin named Mary. The statement is true ONLY in this sense~in Jesus' complex nature of being fully God, the true God, the Everlasting Father of all things, and fully man, is this statement true. Is NOT a true statement~he WAS CONCEIVED in the womb of a virgin named Mary~that's God's testimony. UNTIL he was conceived God did not have a Son, ONLY in his eternal purposes did he purposed to have one. That a false doctrine that the Jehovah Witnesses hold to, in their attempt to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. If Jesus CHRIST had a beginning, then he is NOT God, but, according to the scriptures the Word in the beginning which was GOD, JOINED HIMSELF to the tabernacle of the Son of God, thus is the saying true that God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, (for the first time) preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received UP TO GLORY per acts chapter one. There in Daniel 12 and Revelation 12 Michael is an ANGEL over other angles and his name is MICHAEL, NOT Jesus! Jesus was not born in Daniel 12, not until Luke chapter two. It's really not that deep, one just needs to break off from the traditons of men, and all creeds~and search for bible truths IN THE SCRIPTURES.

Is Jesus eternal ONLY in his DIVINE NATURE as the I' AM THAT I' AM? His SONSHIP as the Son of man had a beginning in a womb of Mary his earthly mother.
Jesus is the Creator, He was there before the worlds were made, He has been with us all this time, scripture is clear.

John 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9482
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #63 on: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 13:45:16 »
Jesus is the Creator, He was there before the worlds were made, He has been with us all this time, scripture is clear.

John 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
ONLY in his divine nature AS I'AM THAT I' AM~The LORD Jehovah God. Jesus as the Son of Man was born IN TIME...Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God was conceived and born around two thousand years ago~there was NOT a Son OF God until THEN. This is the MYSTERY of godliness that you and many others do not see and understand fully.

Jesus was God, but God WAS NOT JESUS CHRIST~do you understand this mystery? God IS a Spirit, always has been, ALWAYS will be~when we see God, it will be Jesus in his glorified body, whom God has highly exalted far above all, EXCEPT Himself!
Quote from: Paul
1st Corinthians 15:20-28~But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
Hobie, as much you and your sect hates the RCC, you are still in love with her creed that has corrupted the Deity of Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ IS NOT the eternal begotten Son of God, that would destroy his Deity of being the EVERLASTING FATHER of all things in his DIVINE NATURE. If you would like to debate me more on this, then let us do so, for I have studied this doctrine inside and out, and know it well. Jesus in his humanity is less than his Father, in his deity he is EQUAL WITH the Father being ONE with him. Many things that could be said and be true of Jesus that could NOT BE TRUE of God; likewise many things said of God, could NOT be true of Jesus in his humanity. Do you see this and agree to this? The SDA are all confused on this just like most other sects, even many godly people are confused, because they follow errant CREEDS written by unholy men, instead of following the inerrant word of God written by holy men of old, who were moved by the Holy Ghost....thereby given by inspiration of God. Which one is it for you Hobie? Errant creeds, or the inerrant word of God?
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 14:01:12 by RB »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38253
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #64 on: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 14:38:05 »
Red, was Jesus sinless BECAUSE of his divine nature or was he sinless because he in his human-ness perfectly appropriated the power of the Holy Spirit? I may have asked that clumsily, I agree that Christ was fully man and fully God even though that makes no sense in my limited mind. 100% plus 100% equals 200%. I have always thought that Jesus remaining sinless as a divine being was no big deal with him being God and all, but if Jesus withstood temptation and faced the cross with his Spirit empowered human-ness, now that is outrageously amazing. Yes he had the power and ability to call down legions of angels to his rescue but he didn't, I believe to experience those things only by his Spirit filled human-ness. I am not saying WE could live sinlessly if we only tried hard enough. But I do believe Jesus's life shows us what a perfectly appropriated Spirit filled human life is. If Jesus's divinity was tempted rather than his human-ness, then he wasn't tempted as I am tempted. I would appreciate your insights and I hope I have not expressed a totally heretical view.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9482
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #65 on: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 15:55:05 »
Red, was Jesus sinless BECAUSE of his divine nature or was he sinless because he in his human-ness perfectly appropriated the power of the Holy Spirit? I may have asked that clumsily, I agree that Christ was fully man and fully God even though that makes no sense in my limited mind. 100% plus 100% equals 200%. I have always thought that Jesus remaining sinless as a divine being was no big deal with him being God and all, but if Jesus withstood temptation and faced the cross with his Spirit empowered human-ness, now that is outrageously amazing. Yes he had the power and ability to call down legions of angels to his rescue but he didn't, I believe to experience those things only by his Spirit filled human-ness. I am not saying WE could live sinlessly if we only tried hard enough. But I do believe Jesus's life shows us what a perfectly appropriated Spirit filled human life is. If Jesus's divinity was tempted rather than his human-ness, then he wasn't tempted as I am tempted. I would appreciate your insights and I hope I have not expressed a totally heretical view.
Brother that's a good question and it deserves a biblical answer.
Quote from: Paul
Roamns 8:3~"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Jesus was the second Adam~the first Adam in the flesh was overcome by the deceitfulness of SIN, through the wiles of the devil. Jesus, the second Adam IN THE FLESH, condemned sin in the flesh...... Here, by the flesh is meant, not the body of Jesus Christ only, but His human nature. In this sense the word flesh is used where it is said,"the Word was made flesh"~that is to say, was made man, and took our nature, composed of body and soul. The nature and the person who suffered must also be distinguished. Respecting the person, it is Jesus Christ, God and man; as to the nature in which He suffered, it is in the flesh. Of the person we can say that it is God, as the Apostle says that God hath purchased the Church with His own blood, and consequently that His suffering was of infinite value, since it is that of an infinite person; and this is the more evident, since Jesus Christ is Mediator in both His natures, and not in His human nature only. For if this were so, His suffering would be finite, since His human nature, in which alone render obedience to the law of God and could suffer by being made sin for us by which He offered His sacrifice, was in itself only finite; and if He had been Mediator only as to His human nature~which, however, could not be, as He represents both God and man~He could not have been the Mediator of the Old Testament, when He had not taken the human nature. And as it is necessary that, in regard to His person, we should consider Jesus Christ living in perfect obedience in his human nature as both the Son of God and the Son of man~it is also necessary that we consider that it was in the flesh that He suffered~ that is to say, in our nature, which He took and joined personally to the Divine nature. In this we may admire the wisdom of God, who caused the law of God to be honored and sin to be punished and destroyed in the human nature of Jesus Christ, in which it had been committed.

Condemned sin in the flesh~Condemnation is here taken for the punishment of sin. God punished sin in Christ’s human nature. This is the method that God took to justify sinners. It was God who, by His determinate counsel and foreknowledge,( Acts 2:23)~punished sin by inflicting those sufferings on Christ of (who was THE Lamb of God without spot or blemish) which men were only the instruments. Sin had corrupted the flesh of man, and in that very flesh it was condemned. The guilt and punishment of sin are eminently seen in the death of Christ. Nowhere else is sin so completely judged and condemned. Not even in the lake of fire, which is the second death.
« Last Edit: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 16:00:09 by RB »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38253
  • Manna: 796
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #66 on: Thu Nov 01, 2018 - 16:08:21 »
Thanks Red!


Offline Hobie

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1964
  • Manna: 17
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #67 on: Tue May 28, 2019 - 17:23:23 »
Form the above:

"On the authority of the first of these texts [presumably Dan. 10:13-21] the Jews have made Michael not only one if the [ _ ]'seven'[ _ ] archangels, but the chief of them; and on the authority of all three [texts] the Christian church has been disposed to concur in this impression. ... and of these classes [of angels] Michael is the head of the first, and therefore chief of all the archangels (Sepher Othioth, fol. 16)."
Very good explanation.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5835
  • Manna: 55
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #68 on: Sun Aug 04, 2019 - 11:48:11 »
While researching the writings of the "Church Fathers" concerning the development of antisemitism within "Christianity", I came across the statement of Justin below. It certainly squashes the idea that SDA's or even the Reformers were the first to suggest and or believe that OT references to certain angels were in fact addressing the pre-incarnate Christ. All emphasis mine.

THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER 63
HOW GOD APPEARED TO MOSES

Quote
And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spake to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know Me, and My people do not understand.” And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him.” Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, “He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me.” From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, “And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.” And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, “And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, “Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me.” And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.” The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, “I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers,” this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote.



Offline Cathlodox

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • Manna: 2
Re: Michael the Archangel “one who is God.
« Reply #69 on: Tue Dec 24, 2019 - 23:59:16 »
To begin with - the Subject line of the O.P. is incorrect. The meaning of the name Michael is "who is LIKE GOD?". NOTE the question mark at the end.

It's a RHETORICAL QUESTION with the Biblical answer being NO ONE IS LIKE GOD.

It should be noted that Ellen White and the other anti-Trinitarian SDA's vigorously taught that Jesus was "Michael the archangel" and in keeping with the Book of Daniel Michael WASN'T the only archangel - there was OTHER archangels - for example, Lucifer was an archangel. 

Ellen White
Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. Signs of the Times Sept 14 1882

For another explicit example go to page two of the following URL - the 2nd paragraph on page two.  This is directly from the Seventh Day Adventist Archives.  http://docs.adventistarchives.org/do...pdf#search=%22

"The first rebellion, or sin, which is transgression of the divine law (i John 3:4), originated in a leader of the angels, one high in the administration of God's government. It was an archangel who, through pride in his brilliancy, fell, and so committed himself to an age-long
controversy with his Maker
"

Lucifer, Like Michael was considered by Ellen to "be a leader of the angels".

To understand SDA Theology and Biblical processes one must understand the Great Controversy theme proposed by Ellen White. Under this rubric God, the archangels (to include Lucifer & Michael) and the other angles were hominid flesh, bone and organ "personalities". Lucifer the archangel because upset because God didn't consult with Lucifer the archangel about the formation of man - God instead consulted with Michael the archangel.

Lucifer stews and pouts and tricks Adam and Eve into sinning thus creating a "Great Controversy between Christ and Satan".

Michael sloughs off his flesh body and becomes incarnated in the Virgin Mary.

The following video is a production made by SDA's whereas the chapter of the Great Controversy pertaining to "The Fall of Satan" wherein the book is quoted along with some cartoon images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=MCDfSwPVdqY&feature=emb_logo





 

     
anything