Is Jesus the archangle Michael?

[Green Cochoa]

M. T. Cross,

I think you are leaving out an important fact in your determination. It is this: God is the "I AM." This means, God does not live in the past OR in the future. God sees both the past and the future as real as if they were happening this very instant. Because of this, Jesus has rightly been termed the "Son of God" in the sense of God's eternal recognition, from an eternity prior to His actual incarnation here on earth, of the fact that He was chosen to become God's Son.

Of the "I AM," we find the following.

I AM means an eternal presence; the past, present, and future are alike with God. He sees the most remote events of past history and the far distant future with as clear a vision as we do those things which are transpiring daily. We know not what is before us, and if we did, it would not contribute to our eternal welfare. God gives us an opportunity to exercise faith and trust in the great I AM. . . . Our Saviour says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). Fifteen hundred years before Christ laid off His royal robe, His kingly crown, and left His position of honor in the heavenly courts, assumed humanity, and walked a man among the children of men, Abraham saw His day, and was glad. "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (verses 57, 58). . . . {TMK 12.2}

Christ was using the great name of God that was given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence {See Exodus 3:14.} Isaiah also saw Christ, and his prophetic words are full of significance. He says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Speaking through him, the Lord says, "I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour. . . . Fear not: for I am with thee. . . . I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. . . . Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he. . . . I am the Lord, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King" (Isaiah 43:3-15). . . . When Jesus came to our world, He proclaimed Himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). . . . {TMK 12.3}

The Lord must be believed and served as the great "I AM," and we must trust implicitly in Him. {TMK 12.4}

[Gregory Matthews]

M.T., you are gracious. No apology needed. As is usual for you, you were honest in your response and I respect you for the honesty that you demonstrate here.

[Gregory Matthews]

MT Cross said:

Quote:

So what you have just said Green is one of two things.

1. The Bible can't be trusted to mean what it says

or. . .

Another option is that the Bible can be trusted to mean what it says, but we may not always understand what it means.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green is bringing up an important point, which I attempted to do earlier, when he ties the incarnation to Christ becoming a son.

[Johann]

Green is bringing up an important point, which I attempted to do earlier, when he ties the incarnation to Christ becoming a son.

[phkrause]

So what you have just said Green is one of two things.

1. The Bible can't be trusted to mean what it says

or

2. You have worked on this until it fits what you want it to mean.

The third option of course is that it does mean what it says and he is and always was the only born/created son of the biblical God.

Interesting points. I've always thought that the interpretation was not exactly correct. I know that most Jews do not except the Christian's translation of the original Hebrew of the OT and of course most, except the Messianic Jews, don't except the NT at all. Here is how the Jews that believe in the NT translate that verse: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed." "Unique to me is a much better way of saying what most who don't like the word "begotten" sounds like. And for me this verse would've brought me closer to God and not away from him. Maybe you can explain why it took you to your present religion?

[Gail]

Well, you know, pk, that would have solved a LOT of bickering on here that has gone on in the past regarding the nature of God!

[M. T. Cross]

Interesting points. I've always thought that the interpretation was not exactly correct. I know that most Jews do not except the Christian's translation of the original Hebrew of the OT and of course most, except the Messianic Jews, don't except the NT at all. Here is how the Jews that believe in the NT translate that verse: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed." "Unique to me is a much better way of saying what most who don't like the word "begotten" sounds like. And for me this verse would've brought me closer to God and not away from him. Maybe you can explain why it took you to your present religion?

Just wanted you to know I saw this PK, but am battling body aches, sneezes coughs and a fever right now........ so I will answer you last question there when I can actually organize a thought well enough for it to make sense.

[Gustave]

In Daniel 12:1 he is called a prince.

In Daniel 10,13 Michael is called one of other chief princes.

Daniel 10,13

but, lo, Michael, one OF the chief princeS, came to help me

Michael was the Patron archangel of Israel therefore Michael...

...Had to help Daniel's angel ( the one delivering the message ).

...Soften up the prince of Persia ( probably a fallen archangel ).

It took Michael AND another angel a couple days to weaken the demon protecting Persia....

...Then after Daniels angel is able to deliver the message.

...He goes back to "help Michael".

This should be easy to understand given that Ellen White taught....

...That Lucifer was an archangel & that there were ( and are still ) many other archangels.

...Michael was just one of the top rank archangels.

[Windsor]

Originally Posted By: Gail

In Daniel 12:1 he is called a prince.

In Daniel 10,13 Michael is called one of other chief princes.

Daniel 10,13

but, lo, Michael, one OF the chief princeS, came to help me

Michael was the Patron archangel of Israel therefore Michael...

...Had to help Daniel's angel ( the one delivering the message ).

...Soften up the prince of Persia ( probably a fallen archangel ).

It took Michael AND another angel a couple days to weaken the demon protecting Persia....

...Then after Daniels angel is able to deliver the message.

...He goes back to "help Michael".

This should be easy to understand given that Ellen White taught....

...That Lucifer was an archangel & that there were ( and are still ) many other archangels.

...Michael was just one of the top rank archangels.

Since you decided to bold "one" and capitalize "of", you must have missed this discussion from jackson quoting Kevin Paulson:

It appears at first glance that Michael is only "one of" the chief princes. This is an unfortunate translation in the King James Version. The word "one" comes from the Hebrew word "echad" which also means "first," as in "first day" (Genesis 1:5). This changes the whole meaning of the verse to Michael being first of, or highest of, the chief princes. Again, a reference to Jesus"

Note: Young's Literal Translation Bible has it correct:

Dan 10:13 And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;

Secondly, where do you get the idea that Ellen White taught that Michael was just one of many archangels?

[Gustave]

Since you decided to bold "one" and capitalize "of", you must have missed this discussion from jackson quoting Kevin Paulson:

It appears at first glance that Michael is only "one of" the chief princes. This is an unfortunate translation in the King James Version. The word "one" comes from the Hebrew word "echad" which also means "first," as in "first day" (Genesis 1:5). This changes the whole meaning of the verse to Michael being first of, or highest of, the chief princeS. Again, a reference to Jesus"

Note: Young's Literal Translation Bible has it correct:

Dan 10:13 And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;

Secondly, where do you get the idea that Ellen White taught that Michael was just one of many archangels?

It also appears at second glance and also in deeper study of the text....

...That Michael is still one of other within a classification of "angel".

...I bolded those comments you say came from Mr. Paulson.

As for Ellen classifying Christ as an angel....

...There are several.

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. His complaints against God's government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven. There was not the shadow of justification or excuse for disaffection; but envy and jealousy, once cherished, gained a power that paralyzed reason and destroyed honor and loyalty. As the result, Satan and all his sympathizers were cast out of Heaven. {ST, September 14, 1882 par. 9}

Ellen White

Listen to their voices as they sing loud hosannas and as they wave the palm branches of victory. Rich music fills heaven as their voices sing forth these words: "Worthy, worthy is the Lamb that was slain and rose again forevermore. Salvation unto our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." And the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph, echo back the refrain of that joyous, triumphant song saying, "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever" (Rev. 7:12). {Mar 329.3}

Ellen White

We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan WAS, next to CHRIST, the highest angel in heaven". Review Herald January 14, 1909

There is a problem here Windsor - According to Ellen White Lucifer WAS....

...THE highest angel in heaven prior to his falling down.

...She claims that "NEXT TO CHRIST", Lucifer was, the highest angel in heaven.

Ellen White

God made him [Lucifer] good and beautiful, as near as possible like Himself.--RH Sept. 24, 1901. {Truth about angels 26.4}

There are several other places where Ellen speaks about there being many additional archangels...

...If you would like to see them I can continue to post them.

Do you know if Mr. Paulson has offered commentary on Ellen's comments I quoted above?

[Kevin H]

Gustave: you still end up with having one angel who was wrong because he wanted to be like God in all aspects, and another angel who's name indicated that he is everything that Lucifer wanted but that it was a sin for Lucifer to want. Why was it a sin for the one angel but not the other?

[Gustave]

Gustave: you still end up with having one angel who was wrong because he wanted to be like God in all aspects, and another angel who's name indicated that he is everything that Lucifer wanted but that it was a sin for Lucifer to want. Why was it a sin for the one angel but not the other?

Michael name meaning is a RHETORICAL question....

.."Who is like God"?

It's NOT "who is like God"!

As if Michael is "like God"! WOW!

[Gustave]

Have Adventists ever considered that IF their proposed meaning of the name Michael....

...Is really "WHO IS LIKE GOD" ( as in a statement of fact & not a question ).

...That it's an admission that Michael ISN'T God because Michael is "like God"!

Lucifer was "LIKE" God, according to Ellen White!

Ellen White,

Review & Herald,

Sept 24, 1901, Truth about Angels 26.4

God made him [Lucifer] good and beautiful, as near as possible like Himself.

This is what happens when people depart from Orthodox Christianity and refuse to affirm the Nicene Creed...

...They end up with theology that is alien compared to the Doctrines the Apostles deposited.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustavae has mentioned the Nicene Creed:

Quote:

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The above is the Nicene Creed.

Look at it closely. Is there any reason to reject it?

"holy catholic church:" No. That is not the Roman Catholic Church. It is a simple statement that God has one church which exists throughout the world.

I would say that SDAs generally accept the Nicene Creed.

Another ancient creed is the Apostles Creed. Here it is:

Quote:

Apostles' Creed

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Where does the SDA church stand on it? Look closely at # 9. The SDA Church does not accept the "communion of saints." IOW, it does not believe that the saints on Earth communicate now with deceased saints who have been taken to heaven.

Well, there are other creeds. For now, I will leave it at this.

[Kevin H]

Amen Gregory.

Gustave appears to have misunderstandings of what we are saying and wants to base his arguments on his misconceptions.

He is determined to make Michael a created being so that he can make us make Jesus a created being instead of the infinite God that he is and thus make it look like we have given up orthodox Christianity and therefore worthy of attack. This is coupled with a spirit of "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts" and "If I want your opinion I will tell you what it is."

The trinity is that we have ONE infinite God who is outside of time and space, transcends time and space, and is too great and two awesome for finite minds to comprehend.

To be able to communicate with finite beings this infinite God has also entered into time and space through the trinity. We have God as power, God as personal friend, and God working with our subjective experience.

Until he became the person Jesus, the being of God the son/God as friend would show up in different forms depending on who he was communicating with. Sometimes as a person, just another human but who turns out to be God himself. Other times as the Angel of the Lord who turns out to be God himself. Sometimes as a fire if that was important in that culture, such as the burning bush/ pillar of fire by night. As a soldier to Joshua, a soldier who was the Captain of the Lord's host. According to the linguists this is the same language and that Daniel was actually quoting this verse in what has become translated in our Bibles as "One of the chief princes"

What does Gustave think Jesus was doing prior to his birth on earth?

[debbym]

Quote:

To be able to communicate with finite beings this infinite God has also entered into time and space through the trinity. We have God as power, God as personal friend, and God working with our subjective experience.

Until he became the person Jesus, the being of God the son/God as friend would show up in different forms depending on who he was communicating with. Sometimes as a person, just another human but who turns out to be God himself. Other times as the Angel of the Lord who turns out to be God himself. Sometimes as a fire if that was important in that culture, such as the burning bush/ pillar of fire by night. As a soldier to Joshua, a soldier who was the Captain of the Lord's host. According to the linguists this is the same language and that Daniel was actually quoting this verse in what has become translated in our Bibles as "One of the chief princes"

What does Gustave think Jesus was doing prior to his birth on earth?

Kevin,

I so agree with your post. You have expressed this point so clearly. Thank-you.

[Gustave]

\

I would say that SDAs generally accept the Nicene Creed.

Mr. Matthews, the following is a literal word for word of the full Creed...

...I will bold that part with appears to apply to SDA theology.

Literal Creed

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, OR MUTABLE, OR SUBJECT TO CHANGE, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

From the Synodal Letter of THAT Council ( part pertaining to this issue ).

First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words.

According to what I've read about this specific issue...

...It is VITAL that SDA's believe Christ was capable of Vice.

...To support Ellen White's affirmation that if Christ failed He would have rotted in the tomb.

Seventh Day Adventist Signs of the Time April 2, 1940

It is VITAL for every Christian to know that Jesus Christ MIGHT have sinned. The Master was not beyond the clutches of temptation. The Heaven-sent Gift could have been eternally lost and the doom of humanity would have been eternally sealed. Jesus Christ knew the pull of evil. "In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:

Just because one can say that the SDA Church generally accepts the Nicene Creed, does not mean: a) that it accepts everything that came out of the Council. that everything that came out of the council went into the Nicene Creed.

Yes, Arius was soundly condemned by the council and his major teaching, which is related to the nature of Christ, is rejected today by the majority of Christianity. Yes, that rejection worked its way into the Nicene Creed.

But, the above does not mean that every teaching of Arius was in error and has been rejected by SDAs and Christianity in general. Regardless of what Arius thought and taught, we believe that Christ could have committed sin. But, the Nicene Creed does not address that point.

[Kevin H]

God's law was self sacrificing love. God had never experienced being a creature prior to the incarnation. Are created beings able to keep the law of self sacrificing love completely or would it at least have a slight tinged of selfishness?

[Gustave]

Gustave:

Just because one can say that the SDA Church generally accepts the Nicene Creed, does not mean: a) that it accepts everything that came out of the Council. that everything that came out of the council went into the Nicene Creed.

[Gustave]

Amen Gregory.

Gustave appears to have misunderstandings of what we are saying and wants to base his arguments on his misconceptions.

[Gustave]

God's law was self sacrificing love. God had never experienced being a creature prior to the incarnation. Are created beings able to keep the law of self sacrificing love completely or would it at least have a slight tinged of selfishness?

God became man without ceasing to be 'God'....

...Therefore God suffered the pain of human frailty.

...As it relates to the weakness of the body.

...NOT THE SPIRIT!

So says Sacred Scripture.

[Kevin H]

According to historic SDA theology Father God exuded Christ out of His own Substance...

...MINUS actual "Deity" which was "invested" or "conditionally loaned" to Christ.

...The Deity was Christ's to keep provided He didn't screw up.

...If He would have it would have "RUPTURED" the Godhead.

...According to SDA teaching.

I'm furious with how you have used this Gustave! This is very unChristlike and I can get into trouble here if I was to use the words that you deserve but please let me explain.

Yes, this is an issue when we look at our history. However this view DID NOT start out as a Seventh-day Adventist belief. It was an optional belief. Now it was a very popular option among our pioneers. However you did not have to believe this to be a church member. There were others who were Trinitarians.

Jesus did not like to corner people grab them by their buttonhole and throw them against the wall saying "You are going to believe this this and that!!!" but Jesus was very unassuming and would ask questions to make people think.

When Jesus said "Who do people say that I am and who do you say that I am?" he told Peter he was blessed because it was not flesh and blood that told him but the Spirit. In other words it is not because Jesus (flesh and blood) said to Peter (as he would do in a different situation with the woman at the well, but even then he was leading her to that conclusion before telling her) "I'm the messiah and this is why you should believe I am the Messiah" but by God's leading Peter came to the conclusion.

Dr. Graham Maxwell tells about how there was a huge debate with a lot of strong feelings on whether to have the medical school at Loma Linda or Los Angeles. The leaders finally said "We believe that the Holy Spirit is leading us to Los Angeles" moved the medical school there which proved to be a disaster and when embarrassed about having to return the school to Loma Linda, Dr. Maxwell said "We should not be embarrassed about this. There were a lot of emotions about both choices and the Holy Spirit did lead us to Los Angeles so that we could see that it would work better in Loma Linda and this has lead to unifying us behind Loma Linda otherwise we would still be split.

In the 1800s a lot of Protestantism wanted to study for sure what points were Biblical and what points were traditions that we were taking for granted. The trinity was one of these. The Holy Spirit showed us the flaws of being non-Trinitarian: If you don't believe in the trinity, you become an idolater and tend to take one aspect of the trinity and make that God in entirety and lessen the other two aspects. And when people do this often it is God the Father that we make entirely God. God as power, God as force, and you end up with some powerful people running the church who expects everyone else to simply comply. You focus on the law and you preach the law the law the law until you are as dry as the hills of Gilboa.

The Holy Spirit has been leading us from this error. After the issue of 1888 Mrs. White began bringing us out of this darkness. Also, as I have been learning more about the development of the doctrine of the trinity, a Methodist archaeologist who I studied with some in 1982 and where I listen to recordings of his lectures as I can, Dr. Jim Fleming, points out that actually the doctrine of the trinity was started in Second Temple Judaism to explain to Greek minds some of the ideas in the Bible that were in eastern thought but did not fit as written into Greek thought. And how the doctrine of the trinity was split between Christians and Jews in 135 AD with Jews clinging more to the oneness and Christians more to the threeness. How the trinity developed in the Eastern orthodox churches and how it developed in the west. Mrs. White's view of trinity is more in line with the old second temple Jewish view and the earlier developments in the Eastern Orthodox churches and more complete than the Western Church's view.

However we have grown into a Trinitarian church. A traditional Trinitarian church. We view Jesus' ministry as Michael the Archangel from traditional trinitarianism. It is unfair for you to take a place where we were, which we grew away from and impose that on what we believe today. That is no better than saying that we can not read any of the priestly writings in the Bible because Aaron allowed the golden calf. Or that we cannot read Paul because he IS a murderer and IS a persecutor of the church and that therefore his writings are actually designed to destroy the church.

Yes, we had a period of our history where this was a popular belief. However it was not a required belief and there were members who were faithful to Trinitarian views. And what you say would be one thing if we still held to those views. However since we have grown away from that belief. For you to throw this in our faces and tells us today that we have to believe this and then accept the label of being incorrect is very diabolical of you. It is cruel and unfair and unkind. And you twist and turn what we actually believe into something that we do NOT believe and thus you are lying about us.

I do not mind people being critical if they are fair in their attack. But you are unfair. You have grabbed on to a piece of history that no longer applies and have used that against us in a way that is cruel and unfair and misrepresents what we are saying.

This is what has been bothering me about your posts from the beginning. I could see that you are having those out of date presuppositions in your mind as something current. Now if your lies about us was indeed true then I would be in full agreement with your posts on this topic. However your thinking is based on faulty information.

Jesus is and always has been fully God. Nothing borrowed. Had Jesus failed it would not be little Jesus rotting away in the tomb while the rest of the universe continued. No, it would have proved that God was not all God claimed to be and could not be trusted and thus all life forms would have rightly broken the life giving relationship with God and the whole universe would have imploded.

[Gustave]

I'm furious with how you have used this Gustave! This is very unChristlike and I can get into trouble here if I was to use the words that you deserve but please let me explain.

Yes, this is an issue when we look at our history. However this view DID NOT start out as a Seventh-day Adventist belief. It was an optional belief. Now it was a very popular option among our pioneers. However you did not have to believe this to be a church member. There were others who were Trinitarians.