Is Jesus the archangle Michael?

[Gail]

When I read the history of the early church, it amazed me how much these councils were characterized by fighting and even violence. The early church fathers fought, and that was between themselves, not between different denominations.

But how much praising of God occurs during the arguing? Of what value is it here or anywhere?

The work of righteousness shall be peace. If the Holy Spirit has not shown it to you, what use is there to arguing?

[Gail]

I ask it again, can anyone understand the nature of God? If you think you can then either your God is too small or you are too big.

[Gustave]

I ask it again, can anyone understand the nature of God? If you think you can then either your God is too small or you are too big.

Gail, please consider what it says in the Bible.

Acts 15,1

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Look up the Greek word here and qualify it with "no small"...

..It means a major insurrection & major striff.

..That involved debate and discussion.

That's all I'm asking you to do here with me...

...Look at the evidence and ponder it with discussion and debate.

[M. T. Cross]

I ask it again, can anyone understand the nature of God? If you think you can then either your God is too small or you are too big.

[Gregory Matthews]

Not directed to any specific person:

In the early days of our denomination there were early leaders who were NOT Trinitarian and in some ways agreed with Arius.

With the passage of time the denomination became Trinitarian.

While the denomination turned Trinitarian, elements of the non-Trinitarians have remained with us. but, the denomination is clearly Trinitarian.

[Gustave]

Not directed to any specific person:

In the early days of our denomination there were early leaders who were NOT Trinitarian and in some ways agreed with Arius.

With the passage of time the denomination became Trinitarian.

While the denomination turned Trinitarian, elements of the non-Trinitarians have remained with us. but, the denomination is clearly Trinitarian.

That is actually something which makes sense to me and if you are right about it....

...It would mean that the teaching that Christ "could have" sinned & ceased to exist.

...Would be an element of Arianism which remained but is not actually believed.

i.e. it is not considered a "vital" belief today as it was in years past...

...This isn't a trick question - I'm just trying to get a radar fix on what you're saying.

Do I have that right?

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gail

I ask it again, can anyone understand the nature of God? If you think you can then either your God is too small or you are too big.

Quote:

Consider that you can see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220 km/sec across the galaxy. 90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA and are not ‘you’. The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999% empty space and none of them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of a star. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 2 less than the common potato.

The existence of the rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So you don’t just look at a rainbow, you create it. This is pretty amazing, especially considering that all the beautiful colors you see represent less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum.

”

— NASA Lunar Science Institute, We Originated in the Belly of a Star (2012)

I think if we can just wrap our heads around this, then we might just have figured out the tip of the iceberg of what Divine Nature really is like.

To understand the Nature of the Creator would be for the creation to become the Creator...

...This is something that will never happen.

...On this side of life or the next.

[Gail]

To understand the Nature of the Creator would be for the creation to become the Creator...

...This is something that will never happen.

...On this side of life or the next.

I think you have just said something I can agree with :)

[scott.t]

I realize that these discussions most likely have no bearing on our salvation, like discussing why water slacks our thirst, but I find them helpful as I try to understand the nature of God.

Growing up an Adventist, I guess I never really looked into our official beliefs on the Trinity. I always thought of the Father and Son as just that. The Holy spirit, I was kinda fuzzy on. But I always believed both the Son and the Holy spirit as being created by the Father.

Great discussion!

Scott

[Gustave]

That Christ was indeed tempted and could have sinned is pure unadulterated Adventism and it is not an element of anything retained from past errors.

[Gail]

Getting back to the original question (sort of):

In Hosea 12:4 and Gen.32 we see accounts of Jacob wrestling with the angel. In verse 28, the angel is recorded as changing Jacob's name to Israel because he had power with God and did prevail. In verse 30 he says that he had (just) seen God. In Hosea 12:3 it says that as a man Jacob struggled with God; 4- he struggled with the angel and overcame him.

I like Deb's explanation about Jesus communicating in the form of an angel. I just think that there is more to the way God shows Himself to us than we can exactly understand.

[Gustave]

Why label it Arianism?

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson said:

Quote:

Why label it Arianism? To me it is in harmony with Paul's inspired writings and some of Peter's as well., so I would label it Biblical. Mrs. White was not inspired by Arianism or the culture of her time, although those who question the source of her inspiration would like to think so.

1) Certain early leaders of the SDA Church were clearly Arian in their theology. That is confirmed by any SDA historian who understands Arian theology.

2) The central tenant of Arian theology is that Christ was a created being and did not pre-exist throughout eternity. Certain of these Arian SDA leaders were willing to say that Christ began his existence (was created) at some time in the far-distant past, which is not known to us today. However, as they did have an unknown time for the creation of Christ, that was Arian theology.

3) Their Arian theology has been rejected by the majority of Christianity today and it considered to NOT be the theology of Paul writing in the NT.

4) The SDA Church of today has rejected the Arian theology of those early SDA leaders.

5) Those early Arian leaders probably did reject the idea that Christ could be tempted and sin. That is not the position of the SDA Church today. It's position is that Christ was tempted and could have sinned.

6) For whatever reason, and probably due in part to our early Arian leaders, there are elements that remain within the SDA Church who still accept some of the Arian beliefs. As part of the "Big Tent" approach of the SDA Church today, they remain within our fellowship, if they wish to do so. However, they are a minority.

7) Ellen White was one of the SDA leaders who helped to guide us away from that Arian background.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave said:

Quote:

Michael the archangel COULD HAVE SINNED exactly like Lucifer sinned....

...God Almighty CANNOT SIN therefore Michael the archangel CANNOT be Christ.

Gustave is both correct and incorrect. His problem is that he is putting the cart before the horse.

1) If one says that Michael the archangel was a created being as were the angels, Gustave is correct in stating that Michael could have sinned as did Lucifer.

2) I will not argue his statement that God Almighty cannot sin.

3) If you say that Michael was not a created angel you must ask what is the fundamental nature of Michael.

4) The classic understanding of Christ, which the SDA denomination accepts is that Christ in his nature had both human elements and that of deity. However, it goes on to say that in this nature, Christ laid aside the power of his deity and Christ lived on Earth with his human nature in charge. Thus, it can be said that Christ could be tempted and could have sinned. If the human nature of Christ had sinned, that would have ended it all and Christ's deity would never have taken control again. But at the cross it ended. Christ had not sinned. At the resurrection on that Sunday morning the angel came and essentially proclaimed that the deity of Christ could again take charge and Christ could return to his role as God after making the trip to visit with God in heaven.

5) With the understanding of # 4, above, and if one says that Michael was not a created being, one can say that Michael could be Christ.

On a personal basis, I do not consider the question as to whether or not Michael was Christ to be important--AS LONG AS YOU AGREE THAT CHRIST WAS NOT A CREATED BEING.

[scott.t]

Jackson(or anyone),

Do you believe that when Jesus was on earth that he remembered his time before he was born?

The reason I ask is, part of mankind's temptation is doubt that God is there and can/will do what he says. If Jesus remembers the time He spent with God,then in fact he did not face temptation as we have.

I'm sorry if I sounded like His nature was not important, I just ment that until we meet Him we can only speculate as have generations before us. There does not seem to be agreement even in a single church denomination of His nature.

For me, I believe God created Jesus. Father and Son, not different sides or personalities of one God. Created or not, I still believe He paid the price of salvation for us.

Scott

[Gregory Matthews]

Scott.t said:

Quote:

The reason I ask is, part of mankind's temptation is doubt that God is there and can/will do what he says. If Jesus remembers the time He spent with God,then in fact he did not face temptation as we have.

His point is valid.

My understanding of the life of Christ is that he did not a memory of his life in heaven.

[Gustave]

Gregory, you said in answer to Jackson:

5) Those early Arian leaders probably did reject the idea that Christ could be tempted and sin. That is not the position of the SDA Church today. It's position is that Christ was tempted and could have sinned.

[Gustave]

Jackson(or anyone),

Do you believe that when Jesus was on earth that he remembered his time before he was born?

The reason I ask is, part of mankind's temptation is doubt that God is there and can/will do what he says. If Jesus remembers the time He spent with God,then in fact he did not face temptation as we have.

I'm sorry if I sounded like His nature was not important, I just ment that until we meet Him we can only speculate as have generations before us. There does not seem to be agreement even in a single church denomination of His nature.

For me, I believe God created Jesus. Father and Son, not different sides or personalities of one God. Created or not, I still believe He paid the price of salvation for us.

Scott

The Arian & Semi-Arian SDA leaders ( to include Ellen White )...

...Had ZERO problems calling Jesus 'God'.

...They however poured a new & alien meaning into it.

...That differed drastically from Orthodox Christianity.

Example:

*Question to the Editor:

Will you please favor me with those scriptures which plainly say that

Christ is a created being ? J. c.

*ANSWER :

You are mistaken in supposing that S. D. Adventists teach that Christ was ever created. They believe, on the contrary, that he was "begotten" of the Father, and that he can properly be called God and worshiped as such. They believe, also, that the worlds, and everything which is, was created by Christ in conjunction with the Father. They believe, however, that somewhere in the eternal ages of the past there was a point at which Christ came into existence. They think that it is necessary that God should have antedated Christ in his being, in order that Christ could have been begotten of him, and sustain to him the relation of son*. They hold to the distinct personality of the Father and Son, *rejecting as absurd that feature of Trinitarianisna which insists that God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three persons, and yet but one person. S. D Adventists hold that God and Christ are one in the sense that Christ prayed that his disciples might be one *; i. e.,* one in spirit, purpose, and labor*. See " Fundamental Principles of S. D.Adventists," published at this Office. Price, 4 cts.

NOTE: The Above was a 'FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF' of SDA's at that time.

The "distinct personality of the Father and Son" statement in the above....

...Is the unique Doctrine of James and Ellen White ( along with the other leaders ).

...Which affirms the Father is a flesh, bone and blood God.

...Also affirming Michael and Lucifer were flesh and bone prior to the Incarnation.

This was stated to be the most important Doctrine to SDA's....

...As it was understood to bolster and prove their Sanctuary Dogma.

...One could NOT be a Seventh day Adventist and reject it.

Also important to note the SDA denomination took feverish steps to lambast the Methodist Creed...

...Because it agreed with the Catholic and Lutheran Creeds.

...Which stated that God the Father was "SPIRIT".

Ellen White had "visions" to demonstrate God's support for SDA teaching....

...That the Father was Eternally a flesh and bone hominid.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:

Theologians sometimes make things complex and split hairs.

In your posts and in mine, I did not understand that your were making a difference between Arian and Semi-Arian positions. In any case, Semi-Arians do hold some basic Arian beliefs but do not accept everything.

As to the comment about whether or not our early leaders believed that Christ could sin: Yes, your statement is a better one than mine, but, I do not see perfection in it, either. My statement was poorly worded. It was poorly worded because I really did not want to make a statement on that point as I felt that I would probably not state it well. I lived up to my expectations. There is some truth in what I said. But, I did not communicate it well and for now I will leave it at that. I do thank you for challenging me, which have given me an opportunity to look at it and to tell you that it was poorly worded.

Well, I will call it as I see it.

While I have some agreement with you, I think that you do not fully understand the historical development of our denomination. Or, perhaps I simply do not understand you. That also is possible.

[Gustave]

Gustave:

Theologians sometimes make things complex and split hairs.

In your posts and in mine, I did not understand that your were making a difference between Arian and Semi-Arian positions. In any case, Semi-Arians do hold some basic Arian beliefs but do not accept everything.

As to the comment about whether or not our early leaders believed that Christ could sin: Yes, your statement is a better one than mine, but, I do not see perfection in it, either. My statement was poorly worded. It was poorly worded because I really did not want to make a statement on that point as I felt that I would probably not state it well. I lived up to my expectations. There is some truth in what I said. But, I did not communicate it well and for now I will leave it at that. I do thank you for challenging me, which have given me an opportunity to look at it and to tell you that it was poorly worded.

Well, I will call it as I see it.

While I have some agreement with you, I think that you do not fully understand the historical development of our denomination. Or, perhaps I simply do not understand you. That also is possible.

There appear to many similarities between our two Faiths Gregory...

...Perhaps more than there than exists between our Churches and every other.

You have class Gregory, you're a credit to your Church...

...Even though we don't see it the same way I can respect your honesty.

...At least I was able to explain myself well enough you can see where I'm coming from.

...I'll take that.

God Bless.

[Kevin H]

Longacre, Deity of Christ Paper

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed & His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth.

I'm not trying to caste SDA teaching in a light other than what it is....

...I did read what you're saying Kevin and would ask you to point out.

...Where I said anything that you as an SDA don't currently believe?

I will have to disagree with Elder Longacre. We have a oneness of the opposites of ones and threeness. He misses the "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" "I and my Father are one" aspects of the doctrine. If Jesus failed it would not be Jesus being food for worms and humans' destroyed with God the Father and the rest of the universe going on business as usual. The great controversy was over the character of God; the 3 deceptions of Satan: 1.) God is not really God but a more advanced form of life who is pretending to be the creator to try to impose on us a law that he has no right to impose on us and thus God is a cruel arbitrary tyrant. 2.) If God is God, God claims to be both Just and Merciful. It is impossible for God to be both. Since he is a cruel tyrant he will side with justice and thus he is going to get you for your sins. 3.) Well Jesus died to forgive sins making God all merciful and thus God will save you in your sins.

These issues were the focus of the life of Jesus, and the whole trinity. Would the Holy Spirit be willing to influence but allow Jesus to make his choices or will he force Jesus' will? Will the father keep deferring to the spirit and the son Would the son keep deferring to the Father and the Spirit. The trinity exists in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other based on the law of self sacrificing love. Anything that breaks this would have been sin. All three were equally tempted Yes Jesus also had the human aspects. Anglican minister Henry Melvill has a wonderful perspective into the nature of Jesus. Satan did indeed tempt Jesus, and God did indeed take the risks. But Satan had to use different temptations than he does with us because of the differences in our nature and his. We have in ourselves a disposition to think we are for ourselves by making less of the outside world. Jesus did not have that. So Satan had to tempt Jesus that doing the wrong would bring glory to God and be better ways of caring for the outside world.

Had Jesus sinned, it would have been a flaw in the God head. Life for anyone is based on being connected through God as personal friend (i.e. God the Son) to the life-giving God. If Jesus failed he would have failed in his friendship with the universe. God would have had some selfishness inside of him and what would have happened with Divinity is beyond my comprehension and is part of that great unknown. But it would have ruined the righteousness by faith relationship with every created being and the whole universe would have imploded; not merely Jesus staying in the grave and humanity dying and the rest of the universe going on as usual. It would have destroyed all of creation and would have done something horrible, I don't know what, to divinity.

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin said:

Quote:

Had Jesus sinned, it would have been a flaw in the God head.

Not at all.

The focus of salvation was whether or not humans could live as God expected them to live. Christ, living in his humanity demonstrated that humans could so live.

That was the fundamental charge of Satan.

Yes, God was in a sense part of this in relation to whether or not God's expectations were just, reasonable and fair. I will give you that.

But, I will say that if Christ had sinned it would not have revealed a flaw in God.

[Gustave]

It's my understanding ( at least of my Catechesis )that Kevin is wrong in a most horrific way...

...Gregory also, but not to the depths of Kevin.

...I'll try to explain where each get's their idea.

Ellen White, ST April 14, 1898

Christ's humanity could NOT be separated from His divinity

In other-words so goes ONE ( the humanity ) so goes the OTHER ( the Divinity ).

Ellen White

he staked even his own eternal existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption.

From my reading of Ellen White and the Leadership of the SDA Church....

...Within the time hack of Ellen's claimed prophetic gift.

...It is clear that Christ's Deity wasn't naturally His.

...It was "CONDITIONALLY" His - on Loan from the Father.

Because the Deity could not be separated and had Christ failed...

...Whatever power the Father loaned Christ would have left this SDA godhead.

...And with what was left of the godhead weakened who knows what Lucifer would do....

Review & Herald

Again, where it is declared, that there are none good except the Father, it cannot be understood that none others are good in a relative sense; for Christ and angels, are good, yea perfect, in their respective sphere; but that the Father alone is supremely, or absolutely, good; and that he alone is immortal in an absolute sense; that he alone is self-existent; and, that, consequently, every other being, however high or low, is absolutely dependent upon him for life; for being. This idea is most emphatically expressed by our Saviour himself; " For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself."

So, the deity can't be separated from the humanity because as Ellen put it....

...The humanity was MIXED or BLENDED with the humanity & not United.

...Unfortunately this is also a blasphemous heresy which was codified at a Council.

More later on this as duty calls and I have a ton of work today!

[Gail]

[Gail]

I hope no one minds me fixing the typo in the title. It's been on my mind since the OP.

There! :)