SDA: Christ is actually Michael the archangel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can anyone show me a verse, just one verse, that says specifically and clearly that Michael the archangel is a created being, as has been claimed?
 
%between%Hebrews 2:7
Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands:

Note: Not “He was an angel”, but rather was unlike the angels.

Hebrews 1:4
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

Note: Not “He was an angel”, but rather was unlike the angels

Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels hath he said at any time, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Note: Not “this angel was called a Son”, but (rhetorically) “No angel has been called a Son of God”

Psalm 148:2-5
2Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts… 5Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and **they were created.

**Note: Angels are created. No distinction put forth for Jesus.

Heb 1:7 (Psalm 104:4)
7 And of the angels He says:
Code: 
  *“ Who makes His angels spirits*
  *And His ministers a flame of fire.”
*Note: Angels are purely spiritual beings.

Luke 24:
37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

Note: Christ is not a “spirit”; he has form (see: Incarnation)

There are a multitude of prophesies about Christ, and not a single one of them includes His being an “archangel” or anything of the sort. Neither is the name Michael given to Jesus through any OT prophesy (unlike Emmanuel, “Son of God”, or “Son of Man”).

Christ being an archangel doesn’t stand up to biblical scrutiny.
 
As I said before, most Christians know only one, and accept only one meaning for the word angel. That is the stumbling block here. I mean, doesn’t everybody know that all angels are created? How can I be so dense as to not grasp that? Can anyone else see the problem?
 
So, if my preceding comment leaves you wondering just what angels are not created heavenly beings with wings, please consult a good dictionary, or read all my previous remarks, and I think you will then know what I am trying to explain here.
 
It may be equivocated that ‘angel’ can simply mean messenger, and that in that sense Jesus was an angel, because He had a message to preach. Being the carrier of the most important message of all times, Jesus would therefore be the ‘first-messenger’, or Archangel.

Several problems arise with this equivocation, however.

It is readily conceeded that there are two senses in which the word angel is used in the bible. In the first sense, it does indeed mean messenger. In the second sense, however, it is a proper name for a proper being. To use a secular example, it’s the difference between principal and Principal. The first means simply ‘primary’, while the second is a distinct person. Can it be said that the teacher is the principal of the class? Yes, if that is to say that the teacher is the ‘primary’ or ‘head’ of the class. Can it be said that the teacher is the Principal. Nope. That is a specific office which the teacher does not hold. In this same way, angel (mal’ -awk in Hebrew) is used to connote either a ‘messenger’ or a distinct being. All references to the distinct beings are that they are created (see Ps 148 above). To claim that Jesus is a distinct being “angel” is fallacious, and this is precisely what claiming that Jesus = Archangel Michael does. Angels are created beings (Ps 148). angels are those with a message (Mal 3:1). To confuse the two is wrong, exogetically. The passages in my last post demonstrate this fact.

Again, the position that Jesus is the Archangel Michael does not stand up to biblical or logical scrutiny.
 
40.png
RyanL:
To claim that Jesus is a distinct being “angel” is fallacious, and this is precisely what claiming that Jesus = Archangel Michael does.
Click to expand...
That is where we have the disconnect. I maintain that your mailman can be rightly called an angel, even though he does not have wings. In that same sense the postmaster general can rightly be called the archangel, so to speak. That is the sense Adventists understand and use for the word archangel. If in your mind that is not possible, then we have a failure of communication that I see no way to solve.
 
History lesson,

In the 1800’s in relation to Boston Unitarians, there was an anti-catholic group called the Christain Connection. Uraiah Smith and James White of the SDA were former ministers of this group. In the Restoration movement ( church of christ, disciples of christ ), Barton Stone had ties to this movement. The Adventist movement overall was influnced by Christian Connection ministers and authors. Their primary modivating force was anti-catholicism, bible alone, anti-creeds reject traditional doctrines like the trinity, soul surviving afterlife, and they prided themselves on coming up with different understandings of the bible then what was held by others. Many of the groups influced by the CC reverted back to some form of arianism. Most, saw the Son of God as God’s first creation before time began. All held some form of making the son of god subordinate and later exalted by God almighty. One of the forms was to make the Son of God, Micheal the archangel which is reflected today in SDAism and Jehovah Witnesses among others.

Mainline, SDA since they became trinitarian in belief, see the micheal thing as not being literal, but as a type of christ.

There is an reinsurgance of traditional SDAism which sees the Son as the offstring of the father and thus created before time began, they like to call themselves homean araiains.

One need only compare Micheal in Jude, with Jesus in the wilderness to see that they are not the same being.

One of their proof texts is in I Thess 4, “with the shout of the archangel” to prove that Jesus is Micheal.

Isa 43:10 refutes the claim that a god will be formed, birthed.

Who Is the Adventist Jesus? (Paperback)
by Elmer Wiebe
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1597813281/ref%3Dnosim/schildnet0c/102-0900664-1754530
 
Mr. Wiebe’s assertion there is not accurate. He does not understand Adventist teaching.
 
Very interesting Daniel. Thank you!

I have a hard time understanding how someone that holds these beliefs can fail to see the flimsy theology that they are based upon. Every SDA argument that I’ve ever heard on this has been based on either a Bible verse or ECF quote pulled completely out of context.
 
Aren’t interpretations like these the reason the Church is the interpreter of scripture?
 
40.png
Subrosa:
Aren’t interpretations like these the reason the Church is the interpreter of scripture?
Click to expand...
Well…yeah…pretty much. I mean what does the New Testament say is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

1st Timothy 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
 
40.png
Subrosa:
Aren’t interpretations like these the reason the Church is the interpreter of scripture?
Click to expand...
That is precisely the underlying problem! Catholics only know Michael as a created being, and cannot accept anything else. :banghead:
 
 
From Smyrna Gospel Ministry:
“Do you see? It is the Father in Jesus, and Jesus in us. They are with us in spirit form, not in bodily form. This is why the presence of them with us is called the Holy Spirit.”
Click to expand...
That’s error. (but also a completely different topic…)
 
40.png
Milliardo:
I think there’s another group who thinks Jesus is also Michael the archangel–isn’t that the Mormons? Anyway, another group worth looking into, if only because of their strange notion: the Iglesia ni Christo (Filipino for Church of Christ, but in no way affiliated to a denomination of the same name) alleges that its founder, Felix Manalo, is the true savior and an angel of God: pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222868&page=5&pp=40 This group also claims that Jesus is just another messenger equal, or really inferior to, the rank of Manalo…well, sort of connects to this issue about angels anyway…
Click to expand...
Not to go off topic, but here is what I found a few months ago:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=49924
 
I will try again to explain another way.
  1. Archangel means Commander of the angels.
  2. Only one Entity holds this office or ever will hold it.
  3. No created being can ever hold the office of Archangel.
  4. Archangel is by definition the office of the Almighty God, Creator of all creatures, the Lord of the heavenly hosts, and denotes supremacy and authority only Deity can hold.
  5. Michael the Archangel is another Title for the Son of God.
You don’t need to agree, but that fairly represents Adventist belief.
Anyone who says Adventists in any way demote Jesus, by equating Him with Michael, is not accurately representing Adventist beliefs.
 
This then raises the question, what is the highest rank a created angel can hold? That I submit is the covering cherub, two of which station themselves at either end of the ark of the covenant in the temple of God, and so are closest to the throne of God. Satan used to be a covering cherub (Eze 28:16).
 
Church Militant said:
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…
Click to expand...

Interesting…the SDA will not tell you right OUT what they believe. Not very honest…and it also doesn’t appear that they trust that their doctrine will be well received.
 
40.png
LSK:
Interesting…the SDA will not tell you right OUT what they believe. Not very honest…and it also doesn’t appear that they trust that their doctrine will be well received.
Click to expand...
  1. The Son:
    “God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ.”
That states the exact opposite of Jesus being created, it says He is eternal.

ANYONE WHO SAYS ADVENTISTS TEACH OR BELIEVE JESUS WAS CREATED IS IN ERROR.
 
40.png
LSK:
Interesting…the SDA will not tell you right OUT what they believe. Not very honest…and it also doesn’t appear that they trust that their doctrine will be well received.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about that. Why is it some churches (Mormons and aperantly SDA {finding this out was shocking}) hide there teachings (I haven’t heard of the Catholic Church hiding any, course if the church does I guess I wouldn’t know about it yet)? I would figure if they boasted to be “Bible Christians” it would be something that they would hoast up into the air.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top