| Author | Message | ||
| Richardhardison |
Lynn, things such as Michael=Christ and soul sleep have cropped up from time to time in Church history. I've come across several writers during my casual reading that confused Christ and michael, wish i could remember the writers but i do remember they were respected authors in Church history. Luther for example held with soul sleep believing that immortality of the soul was part of "the dung heap of decretals" promulgated by the Popes. I caution everyone I deal with to avoid paraphrases by anyone, no matter how theologically solid they may seem. I've seen many readings in the "Clear Word" text that has no relationship to the passage being paraphrased. The Living Bible does a better job, but it's intended audience was Ken Taylor's kids, not adults and was not meant for study. People such has Chuck Swindoll like it, but that only causes me to question Swindoll because it isn't wise for an adult to read anything but the Word of God because these things tend to stick in our memory making them very dangerous. Richard L. Hardison | ||
| Agapetos (Agapetos) |
I know this is an old thread, and I don't know if anyone checks it anymore. However, I just wanted to add one of the greater hidden reasons that Adventism believes Jesus is the same as Michael. It is out of *necessity*. You see, the Adventist belief structure depends on the Sanctuary message from the 1844 disappointment. Connected to this is the "shut door." At the end of Daniel, it says "Then Michael shall stand up..." and so, you see, this fits with the Miller interpretations and the founding SDA doctrine. In that belief, Christ gets up from His ministry in the Most Holy Place and shuts the door. If SDA were to outright declare error in the Michael & Jesus department, then it could put the Sanctuary interpretation in jeopardy. Thankfully, no one in Adventism *prays* to Michael. Our Lord Jesus is loving and forgiving, and He looks with compassion instead of condemnation on our claim about His identity. I imagine Michael probably shrugged his shoulders and says to God, "Hey, don't look at me, I didn't tell them that!" God bless, Ramone Romero | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Really good point, Ramone! Welcome, by the way! Your story (now posted on our Stories page) is really powerful. In Jesus, Colleen | ||
| Lydell (Lydell) |
Hi Ramone, welcome. I enjoyed reading your story as well. Hope you will post often. | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
Read this and try not to barf at the arrogance displayed. A poor unsuspecting person asked an SDA why he believed in Jesus being Michael the Archangel...he replies... There are lots of issues that set SDAs apart from the rest of Christianity but probably the greatest is their use of Scripture. Since I am one of those SDAs I have chosen to take God at His Word and open it up and study it like EGW has suggested. In the process of my study I have discovered that whenever I think that EGW has come up with some new doctrine it is really in the Bible and has not been studied as God would have us to do. So when it came to phrases like prince of the covenant I chose to study the Bible to find out who that was. I found out that I had already drawn a conclusion based on my prejudices of the word prince. I assumed that prince was inferior to king. I had the same concept in reference to captain Joshua 5:14. Once I was willing to put my fears on the shelf and allow the Bible to share what God's thinking was and allow God's vote to be higher than mine then I could start to study His Word. As a result of my studies I have concluded that Jesus is the Prince of the Covenant and that He is Michael. I also found out how Jesus can be the Prince of Peace, the Everlasting Father, and the Mighty God, all at the same time. If you are intersted I can share with you the study on Michael and on Prince? Will await your response. However if you choose to study the Word of God it will cost you a specific payment. It will cost your predjudices and fears. Are you willing to pay the price? In response to Reply #3 I replied to him... He wrote: >There are lots of issues that set SDAs apart from the rest of >Christianity but probably the greatest is their use of >Scripture. I replied: Gregg, what do you mean here? Are you saying other denominations don't use Scripture? Not only do you use scripture but you use an extra-biblical source (EGW) putting it on equal status. He wrote: Since I am one of those SDAs I have chosen to take >God at His Word and open it up and study it like EGW has >suggested. In the process of my study I have discovered that >whenever I think that EGW has come up with some new doctrine >it is really in the Bible and has not been studied as God >would have us to do. I replied: What? You are using EGW to interpret the Bible for you? If you have studied her first, of course you are going to be predjudiced towards her interpretation. He wrote: So when it came to phrases like prince of >the covenant I chose to study the Bible to find out who that >was. Here is the text in question! Daniel 11 21 "He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. 22 Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. 23 After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. This is the only reference in the Bible to the prince of the covenant who will be destroyed. are you saying Jesus will be destroyed? It also says a prince of the covenant this cannot be referring to Jesus. Gregg, did this come from EGW? He wrote: I found out that I had already drawn a conclusion based >on my prejudices of the word prince. I assumed that prince was >inferior to king. I wrote: He isn't? He wrote: I had the same concept in reference to >captain Joshua 5:14. Here is the text in question... The Fall of Jericho 13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?" 14 "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord have for his servant?" 15 The commander of the LORD's army replied, "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so. I wrote: Gregg, where does it say the commader of the Lord's army is Jesus? You are drawing your own conclusions here. If one wanted to draw a conclusion, wouldn't it be more scripturally sound to say the commander of the Lord's army is an angel? Do you think Gabriel is Christ too? He wrote: Once I was willing to put my fears on the >shelf and allow the Bible to share what God's thinking was and >allow God's vote to be higher than mine then I could start to >study His Word. As a result of my studies I have concluded >that Jesus is the Prince of the Covenant and that He is >Michael. I wrote: Well, if Jesus is the Prince of the Covenant, someone needs to re-write the Bible b/c Jesus was never destroyed He wrote: I also found out how Jesus can be the Prince of >Peace, the Everlasting Father, and the Mighty God, all at the >same time. If you are intersted I can share with you the study >on Michael and on Prince? Will await your response. I wrote: Please share with all of us. He wrote: However if >you choose to study the Word of God it will cost you a >specific payment. It will cost your predjudices and fears. Are >you willing to pay the price? I wrote: No, if you chose to study it ala' Ellen it will definately cost you something and you will pay the price. Anything to add? I am going to go back and read this thread to see if I can refresh my memory. I hope this poor guy sees the error! | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
WOW! That Gregg is sure not reading his Bible for what the Bible says. He's deffinatelly reading it through egw lenses. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Pheeki, I'm overwhelmed with that sort-of hopeless feeling I get when I hear an Adventist ever-so-sincerely (and smugly, I blush to admit, having been there and hopefully not being that way again!) pontificate on the true meaning of Scriptures after reading EGW (or knowing SDA doctrine) and determining to see if the Bible supports it. They don't even know how fast and loose they play with the word! Everything is supbject to interpretation based on their presuppositions. It would be one thing if they referenced Greek and Hebrew to see what the words might really mean; it's another to play with meanings when the English words don't match the SDA concepts! Colleen | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
The reason SDAs originally identified Jesus as the Archangel Michael is because they used to teach the Arian heresy, that Jesus was a created being, but not eternally existing as the Word of God and the Only Begotten Son of God. After they officially began to allow Trinitarian teaching in the church in the 1950's, they couldn't admit that they were wrong, so they kept the teaching of Jesus=Michael. I guess they decided that it's better to modify a teaching, and allow unsuspecting individuals to continue believing whatevery they may have always believed, rather than admit their ERROR and DECEPTION and help those erring members repent of that horrible heresy. Only a very few other well-known cults hold onto that teaching. Most/All of orthodox Christianity would reject out-of-hand any idea that Jesus could be reduced to a mere created angel. Jesus = The Word = The Creator = God See John 1:1, 1:14; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:8 and many other scriptures. Steve | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
PS~ See posting above by: Richardhardison on Thursday, November 01, 2001 - 05:56 pm It's a very nice study. | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
O.K., I've been debating whether I want to jump into this and start a cat fight or not. Folks, even Gary Inrig at Trinity has acknowledged in his book on Judges that the pre-incarnate Christ made appearances throughout the Old Testament as an angel. Whether that includes 'Michael' or not, I'll have to do some searching. But to say that Christ never appears as an angel doesn't square with scripture......... | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Question on the same topic: When Jacob wrestled with an angel why did he say he had seen the face of God? Not refuting anything, just not understanding. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Good question, actually. In the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord appeared to various people including Samson's dad Manoah and his wife (to announce Samson's birth), Gideon (to call him to lead Israel into battle), etc. In each of these instances the angel of the Lord did divine miracles to identify himself. He burned with fire from heaven the food offering Manoah and his wife offered; he also burned Gideon's offering. In each case, the people acknowledged that he was divine. Commentators are not difinitive about the identity of the OT angel of the Lord. Many say (Gary Inrig holds this position) that the appearances of the angel of the Lord were appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ. The reason is that he gave people the word of God, he did miracles, people worshiped him, he seemed to function in the role of God many times, etc. Of course, these circumstantial evidences do not prove the angel of the Lord was the Son. Arguments against Jesus being Michael, however, include one that I find pretty compelling in Jude 9: "Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!' î If Michael were Jesus, he would not have deffered to the Lord. In Daniel 10, Daniel has been mourning for three weeks Finally he sees a vision of a man (which, incidentally, is reminiscent of the visions both Ezekiel and Isaiah saw of the glory of the Lord), and when the vision is over a hand touches him and someone begins to speak to him. The person with him says he's been sent to Daniel. "Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia." (Dan. 10:12-13) Clearly the being speaking to Daniel is not a human, and he was involved in a spiritual battle involving the king of Persia. The prince of Persia was resisting him, and Michael, one of the chief princes came to help. This conversation is about spiritual warfare, and Michael is involved. Michael is clearly identified as only one of at least several "chief princes". This cannot be Jesus. He is not one of many. In Daniel 12:1 the heavenly messenger tells Daniel that Michael, "the great prince who protects your people," will arise, and there will be a time of great distress. There are no clear, verse-by-verse explanantions to state who the angel of the Lord is and whether or not he is someone other than Michael. Context, however, suggests they are not the same. Michael is a heavenly being--an angel--who, according to these brief passages in Daniel, protected the Jews. The angel of the Lord appeared to many people and elicited worship from them. The passage describing Jacob wrestling with an angel is in Genesis 32:22-30. The NIV does not translate the word "angel" but rather "man". In other words, Jacob wrestled with a man. This man did a couple of things no angel would have the authority to do. First, at the end of the struggle, Jacob asked for a blessing, and the "man" (or "angel", in some versions) said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel [which means 'he struggles with God'], because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." Then Jacob asked his name, and he said, "Why do you ask my name?" And the man "blessed him there." Then Jacob named the place Peniel because, he said, "I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." The being with whom Jacob struggled touched him and left a lasting mark on him--a limp where the man touched the socket of his hip. This being also gave Jacob a new identity, a new name that foreshadowed his mission and work to which God had appointed him. Finally, this being blessed him. These things are incidents no angel has authority to do. These were acts of God. In short, there's no hard-and-fast proof that the OT angel of the Lord was the preincarnate Jesus, but evidence suggests that it was Jesus appearing to people before he had a human body. Further, there's no evidence to suggest that Michael was the same as the angel of the Lord. Rather, evidence is quite clear that Michael is a high-ranking angel with the specific job of protecting the Jews--at least during the OT times. Jesus could appear as an angel if he needed to--and apparently did in the OT. (He has a human body now.) That doesn't make Jesus an angel, nor does it mean that we can equate an archangel with Jesus. Those to whom the angel of the Lord appeared seemed always to recognize his divinity by the time the meeting was over. The angel of the Lord was never given a name, and Michael is clearly identified, including his position as "one of the chief princes". Jesus is Lord, and he is not a creation of God. He is the Word who was in the beginning, who was with God, and who is God. (John 1:1) Praise Him! Colleen | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
Richard, Martin Luther at one point toyed with the idea of soul sleep in his endeavor to counter of the heresy of purgatory. Luther's later writings clearly indicate that HE CHANGED HIS MIND about soul sleep. Unlike Ellen White and her contradictory visions direct from the "throne", Martin Luther could and did change his mind due to increased understanding. Luther had the luxury of attaining new light and better understanding of Scripture, whereas Ellen White was stuck with her earliest aberrant and embarrassing views because they were supposedly "inspired". Interestingly, Martin Luther indicated that he wished that some of his earliest writings could be burned. Adventist evangelists love to quote Martin Luther on the topic of soul sleep. However, they are showing their lack of historical integrity in doing so. More importantly, they are outright deceiving uninformed minds. They are very cleverly taking advantage of the historical ignorance in their audience. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Hi Loneviking, I agree with Colleen. I've always thought of the phrase "Angel of the Lord" as a specific reference to God Himself. I've long read Jude and agree that, if Michael is Jesus, why would he have referred to Another (the Lord) rather than rebuking Satan directly. Michael is clearly a created being, as Colleen refers to in Daniel, "one of the chief princes." I would have to assume that either Jesus is "one of the Chief princes" or He is Chief OF the princes. Cat fights are fun (unless they're around my house late at night!) Steve | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
Dear Dennis, I always likereading about Martin Luther. I am a bonified member of the ELCA denomination and havebeen doing a lot of reading about M.L. and also reading hisworks. I have found nothing arrogant in his writings and he never referres to himself as a prophet. He referrsti himself as a reformer, which no one will deny that he most certanily was. My sda cousin keeps telling me things about M.L. that he apparently taught. However she gets her learning about M.L. from egw and what she tells me is not accurate. Trying to keep the peace I say nothing. But, with my militant sda kin saying nothing is taken as wimping out because they interpert my saying nothing as acknowledging that the sda is right and correct on everything and that I´m just not smart enough to defend myself. What a life! BTW, this particular sda cousin is the family lush. She loves her booze and when I question her about the contradiction of her sdaísm and her boozing she tells me the sda church is the church most clñosest to being all right but when it comes to the doctrine of alcohol then the sda church is wrong. Go figure! | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
Hey what differences have you found between what SDA say about ML and your findings. I would like to know, this is interesting. | ||
| Freeatlast (Freeatlast) |
Susan, from Encarta Dictionary 2003: "Militant: Somebody aggressively supporting a cause; somebody who is active in the defense or support of a cause, ...often using methods that other people find unacceptable." I'm surprised they don't have a picture of my folks by it. Thanks, I now have another definition to add to my arsenal of SDA adjectives. ;>) | ||
| Freeatlast (Freeatlast) |
Steve, it's got to be either God, or his personal assistant (assuming He has one). The text would have to read "an angel" but it says "the" angel. Anyone have any info on the original text languages? | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
Hi Freeatlast, I don't know about God having an "assistant." Maybe I'm being picky with the exact word used. I'll try to spend a little time tonight w/my Bible software searching for the Hebrew occurences of the word "angel of the Lord" and see what it has to say. Steve | ||
| Steve (Steve) |
There are 64 times where the phrase "angel of the Lord" occurs in the Old and New Testaments. I looked at many of the OT phrases. This the first occurence: Genesis 16:7 Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. In this passage, as in all the others that I looked at, the word "angel" is: mal'ak {mal-awk'} ï from an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; messenger, representative 1a) messenger 1b) angel 1c) the theophanic angel. The word "Lord" is the "unpronounced, proper name of the one true God." In Exodus 3:2-4 the angel of the Lord is revealed as God. vs. 2 The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. 3 So Moses said, "I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up." 4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am." ___________________________________________________ In the New Testament, the phrase is: aggelos {ang'-el-os} ï from aggello -- a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God. kurios {koo'-ree-os} ï from kuros (supremacy); ï 1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord 1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing 1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master 1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor 1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants salute their master 1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah. ___________________________________________________ In the New Testament, the phrase "angel of the Lord" does not seem to have a specific parallel to God. In the Old Testament, the phrase is specifically referring to God. Earlier, Colleen refers to Gary Inrig's, and others', position on The Angel of the Lord being the pre-incarnate Christ. The usage of the phrase in the Old Testament, combined with the different use in the New Testament, seems to support this interpretation. I'll take Jesus as the Angel of the Lord. But no longer see how He could be Michael, ONE OF the chief princes. Steve |
