SDA: Christ is actually Michael the archangel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is just shocking and I have to say heretical
Your signature quotes 1 Pet.3:15; why do you not give a proper Bible reason for such strong statements?

I have in good faith shared SOME of the reasons I see “Michael” as meaning Jesus; and all you can do is to label it as “heretical” without giving one of those “reasons” referred to in the text for your forum signature. :eek:

What in the study which I linked to above is wrong?

PS…It is not wrong to talk about or study the many phrases, words and symbols of Jesus, of which “Michael” is just one of many Biblical examples.
 
Your signature quotes 1 Pet.3:15; why do you not give a proper Bible reason for such strong statements?

I have in good faith shared SOME of the reasons I see “Michael” as meaning Jesus; and all you can do is to label it as “heretical” without giving one of those “reasons” referred to in the text for your forum signature. :eek:

What in the study which I linked to above is wrong?

PS…It is not wrong to talk about or study the many phrases, words and symbols of Jesus, of which “Michael” is just one of many Biblical examples.
I’ve already shown that this is an errant interpretation all over this thread.

You want to revive it, knock yourself out, but you’ll need to refute what has been posted long ago, because the case against this error has not changed, nor has the error of the SDA teaching it.🤷
 
I’ve already shown that this is an errant interpretation all over this thread.

You want to revive it, knock yourself out, but you’ll need to refute what has been posted long ago, because the case against this error has not changed, nor has the error of the SDA teaching it.🤷
OK, that’s fine. But I don’t think you have yet disproved anything specific in the study I linked to above. It is very well-balanced and scriptural.
 
OK, that’s fine. But I don’t think you have yet disproved anything specific in the study I linked to above. It is very well-balanced and scriptural.
I disagree. (From my very first post on this thread.)
  1. The Son:
    God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)
Read this first!

According to the SDA this is what they believe about the Son of God. They do not say so outright on their official webpage however.Fundamental beliefs of the SDA from Adventist.org

This makes Jesus a created being…an angel…and so denies His diety. No Christians have believed this…
 
I disagree. (From my very first post on this thread.)Read this first!

According to the SDA this is what they believe about the Son of God. They do not say so outright on their official webpage however.Fundamental beliefs of the SDA from Adventist.org

This makes Jesus a created being…an angel…and so denies His diety. No Christians have believed this…
OK; lets discuss this a bit too. The first link you gave “Read This First” is not speaking officially for the Church, and even if it was; there is nothing there to say Jesus was “created.” Can you give a specific quote/link from that site which would prove your assertions here?

You have also quoted from our Fundamental Belief #4, “God The Son.” What specific phrase or paragraphs in this belief show that we believe Jesus was created, and is a created being? There are many quotes from this belief # 4 which would prove your accusations to be as baseless as the Protestant Cults who make the same accusations:
Although His divinity has the natural ability of omnipresence, the incarnate Christ has voluntarily limited Himself in this respect. He has chosen to be omnipresent through the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18).

Hebrews attests to His immutability, stating, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

His self-existence was evident when He claimed life in Himself (John 5:26) and John testified “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). Christ’s announcement “`I am the resurrection and the life’” (John 11:25) affirmed that in Him is “life, original, unborrowed, underived.”(*6)
4. His divinity acknowledged.

John depicted Jesus as the divine Word that “became flesh” (John 1:1,14). Thomas acknowledged the resurrected Christ as “`My Lord and my God!’” (John 20:28).

Paul referred to Him as the One “who is over all, the** eternally**
blessed God” (Rom. 9:5); and Hebrews addressed Him as God
and Lord of Creation (Heb. 1:8,10).(*8)
5. His personal testimony.

Jesus Himself claimed equality with God. He identified Himself as the “I AM'" (John 8:58), the God of the Old Testament. He called God "My Father’” instead of “our Father” (John 20:17). And His statement “`I and My Father are one’” (John 10:30) sets forth the claim that He was of “one substance” with the Father, “possessing the same attributes.”(*9)
**These are all quotes which you and others conveniently leave out when telling people “what Adventists really believe;” but these quotes, and much more can be found in our 27 Fundamental Beliefs book, available at any Adventist Book Center. **
 
Your signature quotes 1 Pet.3:15; why do you not give a proper Bible reason for such strong statements?

I have in good faith shared SOME of the reasons I see “Michael” as meaning Jesus; and all you can do is to label it as “heretical” without giving one of those “reasons” referred to in the text for your forum signature. :eek:

What in the study which I linked to above is wrong?

PS…It is not wrong to talk about or study the many phrases, words and symbols of Jesus, of which “Michael” is just one of many Biblical examples.
Protestant101-

Are Jesus and Michael one and the same being?

Does Jesus have a divine nature?

Has Jesus existed from all eternity and is He equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit?

Does Jesus have a human nature?

Does Michael have a divine nature?
 
I don’t have anything to add to the study I have linked to, unless you have read it and can prove it wrong.
Gee, they’re just simple “yes” or “no” questions, and don’t require you to “add” a thing.

What are your answers?
 
Gee, they’re just simple “yes” or “no” questions, and don’t require you to “add” a thing.

What are your answers?
I am sorry if I cannot be of any further help to you. I have answered all of those questions in the study I linked to above. Since you are refusing to read the official explanations of what Adventists believe; in order to discuss these here; (which is the topic under question) then I can only surmise there is nothing else to talk about with you. I believe everything that is in the study; so if you won’t read it and tell me where it is wrong; then my hands are tied.
 
Yeah… well I guess that The Great Controversy is also “official explanations of what Adventists believe” concerning the Catholic faith?:rolleyes:

From Chapter 3:49-50 & 55-56
Little by little, at first in stealth and silence, and then more openly as it increased in strength and gained control of the minds of men, “the mystery of iniquity” carried forward its deceptive and blasphemous work. Almost imperceptibly the customs of heathenism found their way into the Christian church. The spirit of compromise and conformity was restrained for a time by the fierce persecutions which the church endured under paganism. But as persecution ceased, and Christianity entered the courts and palaces of kings, she laid aside the humble simplicity of Christ and His apostles for the pomp and pride of pagan priests and rulers; and in place of the requirements of God, she substituted human theories and traditions. The nominal conversion of Constantine,
in the early part of the fourth century, caused great rejoicing; and the world, cloaked with a form of righteousness, walked into the church. Now the work of corruption rapidly progressed. Paganism, while appearing to be vanquished, became the conqueror. Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ. …55
The accession of the Roman Church to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened. Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of Rome. Instead of trusting in the Son of God for forgiveness of sins and for eternal salvation, the people looked to the pope, and to the priests and prelates to whom he delegated authority. They were taught that the pope was their earthly mediator and that none could approach God except through him; and, further, that he stood in the place of God to them and was therefore to be implicitly obeyed. A deviation from his requirements was sufficient cause for the severest punishment to be visited upon the bodies and souls of the offenders. Thus the minds of the people were turned away from God to fallible, erring, and cruel men, nay, more, to the prince of darkness himself, who exercised his power through them. Sin was disguised in a garb of sanctity. When the Scriptures are suppressed, and man comes to regard himself as supreme, we need look only for fraud, deception, and debasing iniquity. With the elevation of human laws and traditions was manifest the corruption that ever results from setting aside the law of God.
Those were days of peril for the church of Christ. The faithful standard-bearers were few indeed. Though the truth was not left without witnesses, yet at times it seemed that error and superstition would wholly prevail, and true religion would be banished from the earth. The gospel was lost sight of, but the forms of religion were multiplied, and the people were burdened with rigorous exactions.
They were taught not only to look to the pope as their mediator, but to trust to works of their own to atone for sin. Long pilgrimages, acts of penance, the worship of relics, the erection of churches, shrines, and altars, the payment of large sums to the church–these and many similar acts were enjoined to appease the wrath of God or to secure His favor; as if God were like men, to be angered at trifles, or pacified by gifts or acts of penance!
You cannot support her statements from the facts of history nor can you justify all the places in which White pulls scripture out of context and then twists it to suit her own errors…just like this misbegotten teaching that Jesus and Michael the archangel are the same person just because of the interpretation of of the word “angel” as applying to Jesus as God’s “messenger”.🤷

BTW, how is it that you are supposedly the final authority concerning what the SDA really teaches? What you have said in your article about Jesus and Michael does not agree with other articles on the net…particularly the infamous SDA internet “evangelist” Michael Scheifler and his article “MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL … JESUS?” and then Part II.

So…which one of you guys is the new SDA infallible authority?🤷
 
Yeah… well I guess that The Great Controversy is also “official explanations of what Adventists believe” concerning the Catholic faith?:rolleyes:

From Chapter 3:49-50 & 55-56You cannot support her statements from the facts of history nor can you justify all the places in which White pulls scripture out of context and then twists it to suit her own errors…just like this misbegotten teaching that Jesus and Michael the archangel are the same person just because of the interpretation of of the word “angel” as applying to Jesus as God’s “messenger”.🤷

BTW, how is it that you are supposedly the final authority concerning what the SDA really teaches? What you have said in your article about Jesus and Michael does not agree with other articles on the net…particularly the infamous SDA internet “evangelist” Michael Scheifler and his article “MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL … JESUS?” and then Part II.

So…which one of you guys is the new SDA infallible authority?🤷
In this topic; since it is about “Michael” I can discuss that link with you here a bit if you wish.

First; what in the links above on Michael does not agree with the article which I have linked to?

Second; I have made no claim to any kind of “infallible authority” except for the fact that I am stating my understanding of official Adventist beliefs.

The article I quoted was written by an Adventist Pastor whom I knew personally. Now; why don’t you tell us all what in my article on Michael is not correct Biblically? My bets will be on the fact that so far, no one has been able to do that in this topic. 👍
 
Read this first!

According to the SDA this is what they believe about the Son of God. They do not say so outright on their official webpage however.Fundamental beliefs of the SDA from Adventist.org

This makes Jesus a created being…an angel…and so denies His diety. No Christians have believed this…

I think they are saying, not that He is only a created being, but that the angel is not an angel (& therefore, not a creature) but is Christ Himself. Which is a bit different 🙂

Identifying Michael in Daniel 12.9 as being Christ before His Incarnation would not be unusual or novel - it’s a traditional identification, which can be found in as mainstream a resource as Cruden’s Concordance (1740s onwards), in a list of the names & titles of Christ. So it’s not an SDA invention - far from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top