G
Genesis315
Guest
Hmm, interesting. I never knew this. Can you point out some instances?Though Catholics believe that there were pre-incarnate instances when Jesus appeared to people in the OT, .
Hmm, interesting. I never knew this. Can you point out some instances?Though Catholics believe that there were pre-incarnate instances when Jesus appeared to people in the OT, .
If one accepts that the “angel of the Lord” may refer to Jesus in the Old Testament, then there is nothing that stands in the way of archangel having the same meaning. There is no verse in scripture that proves Michael the Archangel is anything less than a valid title for the Creator of all creatures, the Captain of the host, Jesus Christ.Though Catholics believe that there were pre-incarnate instances when Jesus appeared to people in the OT, there is nothing at all that specifies Michael as Jesus, and in fact Hebrews 1 seems to refute that pretty well, without any gymnastics to make something appear to be so that is simply not there. The Catholic Church has not, does not, and will not ever teach that St. Michael and Jesus were one and the same, since that would be a case of worshipping and serving “the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).
It appears that Irenaeus was one.Hmm, interesting. I never knew this. Can you point out some instances?
newadvent.org/fathers/0103306.htmAs an instance of how convinced some of the Fathers were in holding the opposite view, we may note Theodoret’s words (In Exod.): “The whole passage (Exodus 3) shows that it was God who appeared to him. But (Moses) called Him an angel in order to let us know that it was not God the Father whom he saw – for whose angel could the Father be? – but the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of great Counsel” (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., I, ii, 7; St. Irenaeus, Haer., iii, 6).
What a dastardly tactic, using a Catholic Bible. We Adventists are clearly devoid of any sense of what’s fair.In fact, SDAs will use Catholic versions of the Bible to do this when talking to a Catholic.
CHAPTER 3.
Christ shall come to his temple, and purify the priesthood. They that continue in their evil ways shall be punished: but true penitents shall receive a blessing.
Mal 3:1 Behold* I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts.
* Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:17; and 7:27.
Only for those who know only one definition for the word angel, and so assume that the archangel must be created. That is the fundamental problem to discussing this topic.I guess as a few people have already said Hebrews Ch1 destroys heresy very quickly:
Gottle of Geer said:## Isaiah 6 is one possibility. There is reason to think that St. Paul (IIRC)thought this. ##
CHAP. IX. -- OF THE PROPHECIES OF THE BIRTH AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF CHRIST
... For He who ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always *seen*.169 For God the Father none ever saw, and lived.170 And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped171 thy notice, since my name is upon him."172 For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"- that is, Christ's -"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee."173 Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. For the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; "174 and him Christ Himself, coming "to fulfil the prophets,"175 called so to the Jews. "He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp; "176 as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert,"177 but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God,"178 illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery179 of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not "angel" nor "Oshea," but "Joshua." Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God-that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ).
169 Comp. Num. xii. 5-8.
170 Comp. Ex. xxxiii. 20; John i. 18, xiv. 9; Col. i. 15; Heb. i. 3.
171 Oehler and others read "cela*vit*"; but the correction of Fr. Junius and Rig., "cela*bit*," is certainly more agreeable to the LXX. and the Eng. ver.
172 Ex. xxiii. 20, 21.
173 Mal. iii. 1: comp. Matt. xi. 10; Mark i. 2; Luke vii. 27.
174 See Ps cxxxii. 17 (cxxi. 17 in LXX.).
175 Matt. v. 17, briefly; a very favourite reference with Tertullian.
176 John v. 35
177 Comp. reference 8, p. 232; and Isa. xl. 3, John i. 23.
178 See John i. 29, 36.
179 Sacramentum.
[ http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.html](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.html)
1Jn2:So… do any of you see any reason to believe that St. Michael the Archangel is actually some pre-incarnation personification of Jesus?
All I see is a very confused and convoluted attempt to make something appear true that neither the Word of God nor the teachings of the ECF support.
What possible purpose could anyone have to concoct such a teaching?
Pax vobiscum,
It is a common misconception how that Adventists currently teach that Jesus was created; so too are the Bible reasons we do have for seeing Jesus as “Michael;” very twisted by many of the apologetics cults. It is quite Biblical to see Jesus as “The Archangel,” for this is how Scripture portrays Him to be. Please don’t make fun of us or belittle us. Lets just get into the Bible and see what is Truth. Catholics would do well to steer clear of the cult ministries from which they draw their “Adventist truth” from. It is so cherry-picked on these sites; no one can tell for sure what is right or wrong. Catholics, as far as I understand, should never need “Protestant” sources to “prove” their points. This article shows how one cult has been publicly proven wrong about us and how we see Jesus. May He bless us as we study together.I found this quote as the summation of an SDA online article on this topic. Talk about twisting the meanings of scriptures.
This has to be one of the most convoluted and messed up interpretations of anything that I, personally have ever seen.
This would mean then that the SDA actually are adoring Michael the Archangel, thinking him to be Christ? :bigyikes:
About the only thing that he gets right is that Jesus is not created.
But they plainly assert that Jesus and Michael the archangel are one and the same person. A conclusion that can only be reached by the most strenuous of mental and theological gymnastics IMO.
Pax vobiscum,
I read over that but ultimately it is an argument from silence and stringing passages here and there together. It is all virtually built on this verse:It is a common misconception how that Adventists currently teach that Jesus was created; so too are the Bible reasons we do have for seeing Jesus as “Michael;” very twisted by many of the apologetics cults. It is quite Biblical to see Jesus as “The Archangel,” for this is how Scripture portrays Him to be. Please don’t make fun of us or belittle us. Lets just get into the Bible and see what is Truth. Catholics would do well to steer clear of the cult ministries from which they draw their “Adventist truth” from. It is so cherry-picked on these sites; no one can tell for sure what is right or wrong. Catholics, as far as I understand, should never need “Protestant” sources to “prove” their points. This article shows how one cult has been publicly proven wrong about us and how we see Jesus. May He bless us as we study together.