Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rabarker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a quotation:
The uniform witness of Scripture to the sinlessness of Jesus does not mean that He could not have sinned. While it is true that Scripture tells us that God does no evil and cannot be tempted (James 1:13), it is fitting to point out that Jesus as a human being, could have sinned, though He did not. He refused to break His intimate relationship with the Father. There were genuine struggles and temptations, some of enormous intensity, as His struggle in Gethsemane to do the Father’s will shows (Luke 22:41-44.)
. . . The mystery of Christ is beyond adequate expression. For indeed Christ’s sinlessnes is not merely a matter moral perfection, but the foundation of His sacrificial death. His sinlessnes is not simply a statement about Christ-in-Himself but also of Christ-for-us, of Christ as our Saviour. Because He is holly and sinless, He is fully qualified to be for sinners Lord, Redeemer, and High Priest. This holiness, this sinlessness of Jesus, is the moral presupposition of the atonement . . .
Click to expand...
From: Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Raoul Dederen, “:Christ: His Person and Work, “ Review & Herald, 2000, page 165.
Click to expand...
 
Pythons said:
Soon these anti-Trinitarians started to squabble over what were and were not true teachings - they broke up into factions going slightly different directions. This is where we get the:
Click to expand...
A) JW’s.
B) SDA’s
C) Christadelphians
D) WWCOG
Click to expand...
One might suggest that the above are more modern denominations for which their actual relationship with the movement of William Miller could be argued.

I would suggest that there exist today two (2) denominations that have a clear foundation in Miller’s movement:
  1. My denomination, the Seventh-day Adventists.
  2. The Advent Christian Church. The following is a comment on their beliefs:
In addition to their declaration of principles, the Advent Christian Church upholds the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) Statement of Faith, which reads as follows…[14]
Click to expand...
NAE Statement of Faith
Click to expand...
  1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
Click to expand...
  1. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
  1. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
Click to expand...
  1. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
Click to expand...
  1. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
Click to expand...
  1. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
Click to expand...
  1. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Additional information about the beliefs of the Advent Christian Church can be found in the About Us section of their website.[15]
Click to expand...
The above seems to me to indicate that the Advent Christian Church is Trinitarian.

Oh, well, not a big issue.
 
I looked at the quote from the handbook of SDA theology…
…I mean no offense when I say it’s horrifically unbiblical.
…There are actually many MORE Scriptures that speak to the impossibility of Christ sinning than to the fact He didn’t.

The only thing God can’t do is - “NOT BE GOD” & since Scripture says God can’t sin…
…That defaults into Jesus not being able to sin because:
…Scripture explicitly stated that Christ wouldn’t sin .

God became man without ceasing to be God is the general idea I get from the Bible.

It would seem that the SDA Trinity allows for:
  1. the possibility of God the Son to eternally cease to exist?
  2. God the Father would then be forced to forfeit the Milky Way Galaxy to Lucifer “the victor”.
  3. God the Father subsequently finds another universe somewhere and pouts never to be seen from again.
This seems like very alien theology to me and I admit that I just don’t get it.
 
I looked at the quote from the handbook of SDA theology…
…I mean no offense when I say it’s horrifically unbiblical.
…There are actually many MORE Scriptures that speak to the impossibility of Christ sinning than to the fact He didn’t.

The only thing God can’t do is - “NOT BE GOD” & since Scripture says God can’t sin…
…That defaults into Jesus not being able to sin because:
…Scripture explicitly stated that Christ wouldn’t sin .

God became man without ceasing to be God is the general idea I get from the Bible.

It would seem that the SDA Trinity allows for:
  1. the possibility of God the Son to eternally cease to exist?
  2. God the Father would then be forced to forfeit the Milky Way Galaxy to Lucifer “the victor”.
  3. God the Father subsequently finds another universe somewhere and pouts never to be seen from again.
This seems like very alien theology to me and I admit that I just don’t get it.
 
You’re fine Gregory, no problems on my end. I would actually like to ask you some more questions. Don’t often have the chance to ask an actual Pastor these questions.

Thanks for being so willing to offer your (name removed by moderator)ut.
GregoryMatthews said:
Pythons:

I have 38 years of Federal service outside of the SDA denomination. My major exposure to the Roman Catholic church has been to its priests. They have bent over backward to respond to my requests for information about their church. One gave me a book of Canon Law, probably now outdated. Due to some of my official duties, I maintained an up to date publication that directed how Roman priests should perform their duties in a Federal institution.

As a hospital chaplain, when our full-time priest left, and we were unable to maintain part-time coverage, I worked directly with a local priest for 6-months, to get Extraordinary Ministers into our hospital to visit our Catholic patients.

By the way, as a Seventh-day Adventist clergyperson, for 38 years I regularly conducted services on Sunday. The SDA position is in favor of Saturday. That does not prevent me from holding a service on Sunday. Please note that in the Federal government, clergy can neither be hired nor retained without the permission of their denomination. My denomination has the legal right to fire me, as does the RC Church their priests, when they wish. I have personally seen such happen when the denomination wanted their clergy out.

I am not here to attack RC beliefs and practices. I am not here to change your beliefs and practices. I have read many comments in this forum regarding SDAs. I am simply here to dialogue with you if that is what you want. I do not want you to think I am deceptive. I am who I am.

While I do not expect that we shall agree on some issues. I like talking to people of faith.
Click to expand...
 
Pythons:

I will be glad to discuss with you. For now, I am going to bed. 🙂
 
Again, if anyone would like to dialogue, feel free to comment.
 
On anything.

Pythons has posted the most with subjects of interest to her/him.
 
I have posted in a number of places where I was interested in posting.

I have not seen other places that deeply interested me in posting. For now, I am simply responding to what others have said in respond to my posts.

My specific response was to Pythons who, indicated some desire to engage me later. O.K. Fine.
 
Hi Gregory, rest assured I have many questions for you but currently my work load is preventing me from articulating them right now. I will be back in a few days and we can start our discussion.
 
GregoryMatthews said:
They are not in conflict once you understand that the idea that Christ is Michael is not saying that Christ is a created angel. It is only saying that Christ as a member of the Godhead is in charge of the Angels.
.
Click to expand...
**They are not in conflict once you understand that the idea that Christ is Michael is not saying that Christ is a created angel. It is only saying that Christ as a member of the Godhead is in charge of the Angels. **

If you say that** Christ is Michael** then you are in fact saying that Christ is an angel.

It’s like asking what the meaning of is is.
 
GregoryMatthews said:
Pythons asked:
  1. My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that both the Catholic church and the SDA church are in agreement on what the Bible says about the doctrine of the Trinity. I am not well enough informed as to the historical development of that doctrine in the Catholic
    Church to comment on what you have called “Sacred Tradition & the Councils.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Justaservant: I apologize if I sounded like I was taking something personally. That was not my intent as I have not taken anything personally that has been posted.

Any way, I thank you for responding and therefore giving me a chance to clarify.
 
Miriam1947 said:
They are not in conflict once you understand that the idea that Christ is Michael is not saying that Christ is a created angel. It is only saying that Christ as a member of the Godhead is in charge of the Angels.

If you say that** Christ is Michael** then you are in fact saying that Christ is an angel.

It’s like asking what the meaning of is is.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the majority of people believe that Michael is a created being, an angel, and therefore, Michael is not Christ.

Seventh-day Adventists, who may believe that Christ is Michael, have taken a minority position, but one that says that Michael, is not a created being an angel. I have not discussed their thinking on this point as I am not posting in this forum in an attempt to convince anyone. Rather, I prefer to simply state, when asked, what our belief is.

The issues as to whether or not Christ was a created being, and therefore not fully God is an important issue. We are in agreement on that point as we are Trinitarian and NOT Arian.

Once that is understood, the issue of whether or not Christ is Michael is of little importance, in my thinking. If we are wrong on that, no big deal. If we are correct on that, no big deal. Membership in the SDA denomination is NOT determined by what one thinks on that issue.
 
GregoryMatthews said:
The difference is that the majority of people believe that Michael is a created being, an angel, and therefore, Michael is not Christ.

Seventh-day Adventists, who may believe that Christ is Michael, have taken a minority position, but one that says that Michael, is not a created being an angel. I have not discussed their thinking on this point as I am not posting in this forum in an attempt to convince anyone. Rather, I prefer to simply state, when asked, what our belief is.

The issues as to whether or not Christ was a created being, and therefore not fully God is an important issue. We are in agreement on that point as we are Trinitarian and NOT Arian.

Once that is understood, the issue of whether or not Christ is Michael is of little importance, in my thinking. If we are wrong on that, no big deal. If we are correct on that, no big deal. Membership in the SDA denomination is NOT determined by what one thinks on that issue.
Click to expand...
What I think lends folks to the understanding that something is very wrong with the SDA position is that…
…There are many theological statements casting Christ as being historically capable of sinning.
…& had He done so ‘God’ would have annihilated Him so they He would have become as if He never existed.

According to Scripture this is an alien & possibly heretical position to take…
…I would put forth that Scripture identifies that teaching as one of antichrist.

Matthew 1,20
the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he SHALL save his people from their sins

That seems pretty direct to me - “The angel of The Lord”, acting on authority from The Lord…
…Clearly says the outcome will be that Jesus “will save”.

Luke 2, 25
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, BEFORE he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

We know from reading further into St. Luke’s Gospel Simeon was awe struck when he observed & held the Baby Jesus…
…Simeon was already “old” by that time & asked God to “let him depart” ( die ).
…Because he had witnessed the Salvation of the world by witnessing Jesus.

Had Jesus failed by default He WOULDN’T have been the Christ…
…Therefore Simeon, according to Ellen White would have been immortal, never to die.
…But then again would that even be true?

Had Christ failed then the Law & Prophets would not have been worth the paper they were written on…
…The Old Testament ( as we Christians call it ) would be so much “fish wrap”.
…Because God promised in multiple places in the Old Testament His Christ would NOT fail.

Catholics who are familiar with what the Council said about Arius & his teachings…
…And are also familiar with Scripture & the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
…Have difficulty accepting Ellen White’s visions as authoritative or even biblically sound.

Combined with her testimony of leaving planet earth & visiting extraterrestrials on their home world…
…It is difficult to seriously consider some of the SDA theology.

Pertaining to the impossibility of Christ failing that a couple Scriptures for you to consider…
…I have over 90 more that are equally, if not more assertive of what I’m trying to say.

I don’t think anyone here has a beef with the SDA Sabbath beliefs or many of the other teachings that differ from us…
…We are however pretty serious about the Trinity & sticking with what “we know” from the Church.
…Which I maintain is fully supported in Sacred Scripture.

I’m glad you are here Gregory.
 
Pythons: I (We) consider Hebrews 4:15 to be a very important verse on this subject:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.
Click to expand...
So also is Philippians 2: 6 & 7.

To briefly put it: Our understanding is that the incarnated Christ was composed of two natures. On the one hand he was “Fully God” and on the other hand he had a human nature. We would say that his human nature came from the virgin Mary and the conception through the power of the Holy Spirit, who was (is) God. Yes, in our (my) human understanding this is well beyond what I can imagine in totality.

Yes, as we do not have these two natures, Christ was different from what you and I are, which you would agree with. 🙂

In our understanding, in the incarnation Christ laid aside His divine prerogatives. He became totally dependent upon God the Father (John 5:30). IOW, he did not use his divine powers. In His divinity Christ was omnipresent. In the incarnation He limited his omnipresence to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I could make similar statements about other divine attributes–immutability, self-existence, omnipotence, omniscience and more.

We would not say that the nature of God that Christ had was capable of sinning. Do not attribute that to us, please. But, you may correctly say that being made in the nature of humanity, we believe that Christ in that human nature was capable of sinning.

As part of our thinking, we would ask: 1) How could the temptations be real if there was no possibility of sinning? 2) How could Christ be made in the nature of humanity if unlike us he could not have sinned?

Yes, you can cite Biblical verses that tell us that God’s plan of salvation was certain. I would respond that God in HIs foreknowledge knew that it was a plan that would succeed. But, I would also say that the potential was there for it to fail.

Just as you tell me that you could list a great number of verses to support your understanding of the Biblical positon, so also could I list other verses that I believe support my (our) understanding of the Biblical position.

But, I do not picture it appropriate for you and I to be standing in the street, with our 6-shooters out, sending Biblical verses down range as we discharge our weapons at each other. It would be, in my thinking, quite inappropriate for me to come here with the motive of either attacking Catholic beliefs or of converting the members of this forum to the SDA position.

Rather, what I think is appropriate is to engage in dialogue in which we understand better what we each believe. It is for that reason that I am here. I have read a number of posts in this forum in which statements have been made about what SDAs believe. I think that it can be helpful to discuss SDA beliefs without attempting to either attack Catholic beliefs or attempting to convert you to our understandings.

In these discussions I fully expect that we will often disagree. But, perhaps (?) we will at times reach a common understanding of where our differences lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top