| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2003 - 11:21 pm: |     |
Steve, thanks for doing and sharing the above research. It really makes the issue quite clear. Thanks again!
Colleen |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 95
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
It is so interesting to read what Adventism teaches. I do not remember a thing of Jesus being Michael, one of the chief princes or lots of the other things mentioned on this site. I feel like I have a blank page in my head to write on and what I am writing on its is God's truth. I kind of like it that way.
I would be kind of nice if I did remember some stuff so I could understand where some of you are coming from.
But God has taken it all away so I would not have any struggle leaving and learning His truth.
God is truly awesome.
Diana |
Sharon2
Registered user
Username: Sharon2
Post Number: 2
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
Don't worry the Adventists aren't really hung up on whether Michael is an angel or another name for Jesus. When I approached two of the Adventist Book Centers about carrying my recently published book which is Biblical Fiction. I told them that in the book, Michael is an angelic character and not Jesus. That information was brushed aside. What they wanted to know about was how the book was selling. MOney was the bottom line and they are carrying my book.
Sharon |
Kme
Registered user
Username: Kme
Post Number: 34
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
I had never heard anything about Michael being Jesus until we went to another 7th day observing church.
I can totally believe you Sharon about money being the bottom line. That's not just limited to the Adventist Book Centers! Do you sell your book in other Christian book centers?
Kme
|
Sharon2
Registered user
Username: Sharon2
Post Number: 3
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
Kme
I published through a print on demand publisher which means that I have to do my own marketing. Several bookstores carry it. The easiest place to get my book is on line at Booksurge.com or you can go to the webpage that a friend did for me http://www.imecinc.com/slindsay.html
Sharon |
Kme
Registered user
Username: Kme
Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
Thank you Sharon.
Kme |
Debbie
Registered user
Username: Debbie
Post Number: 59
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
Sharon2,
I went to your website, mentioned above. I know I've seen your book advertised somewhere else before, though I can't place where...
It looks and sounds really interesting and provocative!
I will pray that more people will hear about it, and will be inclined to read it. I believe very strongly that books such as yours can have widespread cultural impact, planting seeds to the salvation of souls.
God Bless You
Debbie
|
Sharon2
Registered user
Username: Sharon2
Post Number: 5
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 7:39 pm: | |
Debbie,
That's good news that you have seen it somewhere else! The more exposure the better. Many people have told me that my book really confirmed for them that Jesus did come in the flesh. I hope you get to read it one day.
Sharon |
Debbie
Registered user
Username: Debbie
Post Number: 60
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 9:13 am: | |
Sharon2,
Don't worry, I will! In fact, this morning I was trying to pinpoint where I saw it before...I'm one of those people who has to keep searching until I find that "connection" so to speak--and I'm an avid reader.
Debbie |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 587
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 8:29 am: | |
About Josus bein the Archangel Michael-the Annoying Facts group pushes this doctrine quite heavely. I recntly asked an elderly SDA lady if she believed this is correct. She told me she does not have an opinio on it one way or the other, that it doesn't matter because when we get to heaven we can find out. I told her the SDA church still has this in their doctrines and wouldn't she want to know what her churchs doctrines are based on. I was told God works in mysterious ways and not all the SDA doctrines have to make sense to her now, that they are The Commandment Keeping church thus they are the most right of any denomination, therefore everything else can we waited for her to understand when she gets to heaven . |
Debbie
Registered user
Username: Debbie
Post Number: 62
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Sharon2
I just purchased your book from booksurge.com. However, before I purchased it from booksurge, I tried to get it through Barnes and Noble. The person who helped me said that it was unfortunate that they were unable to get it.
They knew about your book, had it in their sytem, but said that because it wasn't in their warehouse they were unable to obtain for for me, and that this was very unfortunate. They were even able to tell me that your book has been out since 2002. Have you considered making it available to stores such as Barnes and Noble? That's wheere I do most of my book buying. I have a 15% coupon sitting in my house, plus I'm a B&N member, so I would have gotten another 10% discount. This is how I'm able to read so many books. Otherwise I'd go broke!
The lady who helped me really seemed sorry that she couldn't get your book for me...Something for you and your publisher to think and pray about.
Debbie |
Debbie
Registered user
Username: Debbie
Post Number: 63
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
Sharon2,
One of the main reasons I use B&N is because I rarely come across a book, Christian or otherwise, that I can't find through their website!
Debbie |
Sharon2
Registered user
Username: Sharon2
Post Number: 12
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 9:41 pm: | |
Debbie,
Thank you for buying a copy of my book. Feel free to ask any questions. Before you even ask, I'll answer the first question that most people ask. Why do you use Adonai Eloheim, Yeshua, and Ruach HaKodesh for God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The answer is that in this book they are characters and I wanted them to have names rather than labels, so I used their Hebrew names. Although Yeshua is only used to represent Jesus in heaven. On earth he is Jesus.
Also, I have found that book distribution is complicated. At the time I published, I do not think my publisher had a deal with Ingram which is the distributer that Barnes and Noble works with. They might have a deal now, but it is probably pricey. Never-the-less, I should look into it. If the Lord wants me to move in that direction the money will be provided.
Sharon |
Debbie
Registered user
Username: Debbie
Post Number: 65
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
Sharon2,
Actually, regarding the names, that's what I had thought you were doing--using the Hebrew names--which I think is beautiful, and really adds to the intended meaning.
In the past few years, as a result of my job, I began learning a second language. I had always heard about how limited English is. For example, the word "agape" is translated as "love" whether it is intended as friendship, romantic, sexual or unconditional love. But learning a second language, however limited it has been, has really stretched my understanding of how much more we can understand of what God intended to speak to us through His Word.
I have a bilingual (Spanish/English) bible now. Even seemingly little things such as Jesus' intimacy talking to His Father are made more evident by reading the Spanish version of the bible. For example, in the English text the word "you" is the same, whether it is formal, singular or plural. However, in Spanish, the more familiar form is "tu" versus the more formal "usted" (and of course the plural is "ustedes"). I was astounded to realize one day as I was reading the parallel Spanish/English bible, that Jesus, whenever he spoke to God the Father, always used the familiar "tu" form. This is made evident in the Spanish version but not in the English! I found this so exciting to realize! Really, it motivated me to want to learn more of not only the Spanish language, but also to become more familiar with Hebrew and Greek.
And actually, I've discovered (as I heard before) that once you begin learning one language, the principles are the same; it does become somewhat easier to understand other languages. (For example, I've learned that "im" added to the end of a word in Hebrew oftentimes makes that word plural--this is something I would not have cared about or thought significant before).
Debbie  |
Sharon2
Registered user
Username: Sharon2
Post Number: 14
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Thank you for that bit of information. I will tuck it in the back of my mind. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 920
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
I have before me the Sept. 2004 issue of The Signs. On page 28 by Marvin Moore, editor of the Signs gets question asking how can Jesus be an angel. This "You are correct that Jesus is not an angel. Angels are created beings. Jesus is the devine Son of God, fully equal with God the Father. Heb. 1:3 says, 'the exact representation of (God's) being'. Thus, the next verse is absoutelly correct when it says that Jesus is "as much suerior to the angels as the name he has inheritated is superior to theirs."// So why did our Signs special edition, "The Bible's Book of Revelation" say that 'Michael is Christ'? I'll begin by quoting the complete sentence in that special edition: 'Michael is Christ-though this no more makes him merely than does he fact that chapter 5 calls Him a Lamb makes Him merely an animal'. The previous verse in Revelation 5 also calls Jesus a Lion. This doesn't mean that Jesus is literly a lion or a lamb. These are symbolic titles, descriptive of His characteristics of strength, humility, sacrifice, etc. Similarily, we understand th word 'archangel' to be a title, not a satement of Christ's character. // Several texts in the Old Testement apply th word 'angel' to Diety. The most striking example is in Ex. 3, where, 'the 'angel' of the LORD appeared to (Moses) in flames of fire from within a bush'. A few verses this 'angel of the LORD' indentified Himself to Moses as, 'I AM', that is, Jehovah, the Hebrew name for God Almighty. Obivously, the words, 'angel of the LORD' must be considered a title, not a statement about God's nature. We understand the same to be true of the title 'archangel' as applied to Christ.// Daniel applied the name Michael three times to a heavenly being who was called a 'prince'. In chapter 10:13 he is called, 'Michael, one of the cheif princes'; in verse 21 he is called, 'Michael, your prince'; and in chapter 12:1 he is called, 'Michael, the great prince who protects your people'.// Daniel 8 also speeks of a prince, though it doesn't give him a name. Verse 11 calls him, 'the Prince of the host', and verse 25 calls him, 'the Prince of Princes'. most versions capialize the word 'prince' in verse 25, indicating that the translators considered this to b a reference to Diety, and the NIV capitalizes the word 'prince' in verse 11. The Hebrews use the same word for 'prince' in both Daniel 8 and the references to Michael the prince in chapters 10 and 12. Thus, it seems likely that the 'Prince of princes' in chapter 8 is the same as, 'Michael, the great prince' in chapter 12:1. While the text doesn't require it, it is resonable to understnd that this Michael, 'the great prince who protects your people' is a devine Being. // In Jude 9 the archangel Michael disputed with the devil about the body of Moses, and in Rev. 12:7 Michael and his angels engaged in battle against the devil and his angels. Notice that in both instances Michael was in conflct with Satan, just as Jesus was in conflict with Satan throghout His life on earth. // It's also significant that Rev. 12:7 presents Michael as the leader of God's army of angels in heaven who are in conflct with Satan and his angels. Compare this with verse 10, which says, 'Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, 'and the authority of his Christ'. For the accuser of our brothers...has been hurled down.' The one who was hurled down was Satan, who with his angels had challanged 'the authority of Michael', the leader of the angels that were loyal to God. Satan's defete established the auhority of Christ, aka Michael, on an eternal basis. // You may disagree with the idea that Michael and Christ are the same Person, and I respect that. However, I trust you can see from this discussion that there's significant bibical evidence for identifing Michael the archangel as Christ, but his doesn't mean that Christ is an angel". END OF ARTICLE!!!! Comments? |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 476
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
First thought is that Satan's defeat did not establish Christ's authority. By being an eternal diety, he was an authority whether Satan was defeated or not. When Michael was in conflict over Moses body, he only said "the Lord rebuke you"...that doesn't sound like something Jesus would say...he is the Lord. Jesus spoke as an authority when he was being tempted by the devil in the wilderness, he was not deferring to some higher power as Michael was in Jude. It's more faulty connections based upon suppositions and attempts to make historical SDA teachings look accurate.
...in my opinion, I guess I should say.... |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 687
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 9:48 am: | |
I agree, Melissa. Marvin Moore is quoting texts out of context to make his point. Michael the archangel, Jude is saying, did not have the authority to rebuke Satan himself; he said instead, "The Lord rebuke you."
One of the themes in Moore's article above that struck me is his repeated reference to Satan being in battle with Michael who he calls Christ. That idea is the essence of the Great Controversy. The Bible just does not say that Jesus and Satan are in conflict. While He was on earth, Jesus was tempted by Satan, but He has never been in a struggle (as with an equal!) for the title to the earth. Jesus has always been in authority over Satan. Jesus' death and resurrection was a statement of His authority and deity; as Melissa said, his defeating Satan did not establish his authority.
There seems to be a vested interest in EGW to establish Satan's ongoing struggle with Jesus, as if such a thing were even possible. Closely related is the attempt to make it look as if Satan partially carries our sins upon himself (think scapegoat). It all just reminds me of Mormon teaching that Jesus and Satan were brothers who fought each other for dominance--I wonder where Ellen could have gotten the inspiration for her Great Controversy idea which seems so closely related?
I've become convinced that her visions were more than the product of seizures or an active imagination. She had to be inspired by a source who wanted to appear as if he had a legitimate struggle with Jesus.
Colleen |
Dane
Registered user
Username: Dane
Post Number: 37
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Daniel 10:13 is one of several texts that SDA try to use to estalish their assertion that Christ is Michael. However, it should first be remembered that Daniel's prophecies were intended primarily for the Jews of his day, especially those in Babylon.
From what I have read of ancient Jewish beliefs (I'm not an authority) I get the impression that they had quite a complex angeology. They apparently believed that the angels were divided up in a manner similar to an army, with various groups that we might call divisions. Each division would have a leader angel called a prince. Various princes and their angel troops were assigned different tasks and perhaps geographic areas. The demonic angels were similarly arranged. Thus, when Daniel 10:12 refers to a prince of Persia this can be interpreted as the demon in charge of Persia, etc.
Secondly, Michael is refered to as "one of the chief princes". Christ is not "one" of any group.
Also, as Colleen mentions, Jude shows us that Michael did not have inherent authority to rebuke Satan. To claim that Christ had no authority over Satan goes completely against the Biblical teachings on the Second member of the Trinity.
This is a great example not only of SDA proof-texting, but also of their weak view of Christ's Diety.
Dane |
Dane
Registered user
Username: Dane
Post Number: 38
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
I forgot to mention in my previous post that this was one of the SDA ideas that I questioned even as a kid in SDA elementary school. I remember trying to point out some of the inconsistencies I found. My teacher would just go over the same litany of proof-texts without giving me any real explaination. Finally I was told that I would understand better when I got older. Right!
Sadly, looking back at my SDA education I am positive that most of my Bible teachers really didn't understand SDA theology themselves.
Dane |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 925
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
Dane, Did you and me have the same teachers in SDA school? I think we must have. Either that or maybe the SDA teachers are actually told by the SDA leaders that when children question certain tenents of the church to tell the kids that they are "just children" and will understand the SDA truth when they are grown up. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page