Do SDA believe Michael is God?

[ChristianSubMissionary]

ranks in the Bible low to high: Captain, commander, prince, king, God

Captain:

Josh 5:15: "And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so."

Commander:

Isa 55:4: "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people."

Prince:

Acts 3:15: "And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses."

King:

Rev 19:16: "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

God:

Heb 1:8: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

We do not have a full picture of any angel, and only two are named in the Bible (Gabriel is the other).

Is Lucifer not named? Is he not an angel?

Isa 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

Rev 9:11: "And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon."

I personally think that "Got Questions" is more like "Giving Confusion". Trust the Bible and the Holy Ghost instead.

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

surely you are smart enough to recognize when the Angel of the LORD is referred to as God and when 'an angel' is not?

So this is the Son of the Father, right?

Zechariah 3:

1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

2 And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

And this is Gabriel, right?

Luk 1:11: "And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense."

Luk 1:19: "And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings."

Does the Son of the Father, as messenger of the Father, have ruling authority over Gabriel?

You are telling me that you believe that The Son of the Father is identified in scripture as "the Angel of the LORD", correct?

If so, is the Son of the Father the highest messenger that the Father sends?

When Hebrews 1:2 says that the Father hath spoken unto us by the Son, does that reveal that the Son came with a message from the Father to us?

When Hebrews 1:3 says that the Son is the "express image" of the Father's person, is the Son then just like unto God His Father?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

1 Cor. 15:46

https://archive.org/details/angels-of-lie-ght_202009

That verse just says that natural life comes first before spiritual life. It's irrelevant to this principle.

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

That verse just says that natural life comes first before spiritual life. It's irrelevant to this principle.

No, it states a principle.

1st the Natural.

2nd the Spiritual.

Ex.

Natural Babylon first.

Spiritual Babylon after.

Ex.

Natural lamb slain foundation of the world.

Spiritual Lamb slain at Calvary.

3 1/2 natural (1260 days) Christ.

3 1/2 (1260 days) spiritual (1260 years) antiChrist.

Ex.

Natural Jezebel OT.

Spiritual Jezebel NT (Rev.)

Etc.

See the link provided for many details.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it states a principle.

1st the Natural.

2nd the Spiritual.

Ex.

Natural Babylon first.

Spiritual Babylon after.

Ex.

Natural lamb slain foundation of the world.

Spiritual Lamb slain at Calvary.

3 1/2 natural (1260 days) Christ.

3 1/2 (1260 days) spiritual (1260 years) antiChrist.

Ex.

Natural Jezebel OT.

Spiritual Jezebel NT (Rev.)

Etc.

See the link provided for many details.

There’s so such links, you’ve just made all these stuffs up.

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

.

There’s so such links, you’ve just made all these stuffs up.

How do you think a parable works?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

.

How do you think a parable works?

Paul wasn't speaking in any parable, he was stating a fact about spiritual life. There's no such "spiritual 1260 years", all mentions of "a time, times and half a time" are referring to literal 3.5 years of the final Great Tribulation. Other things can be interpreted spiritually, but time periods must be interpreted literally. You know, SDA would've had a lot credibility if not for this silly "principle".

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

You know, SDA would've had a lot credibility if not for this silly "principle".

Start another thread and I will show you from scripture in context, as well as from historical Christianity unto the present day those who held what we do.

What you presently hold is a Jesuit futurism construction, which I can also show you.

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

Paul wasn't speaking in any parable, he was stating a fact about spiritual life.

Paul understood from God's creation (natural) the many lessons (spiritual) God wrote therein:

Rom 1:20: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

First natural which will teach of the spiritual. See also 1 Cor. 10.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Start another thread and I will show you from scripture in context, as well as from historical Christianity unto the present day those who held what we do.

What you presently hold is a Jesuit futurism construction, which I can also show you.

Their version is the "secret rapture”, "seven year tribulation" and "third temple in Israel". I've never bought in any of that dispensationalist heresy.

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

Their version is the "secret rapture”, "seven year tribulation" and "third temple in Israel". I've never bought in any of that dispensationalist heresy.

All that came later.

Francisco Ribera SJ (1537-1591):

"... according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition, 1593 edition, and a 1603 edition of his commentary are now online. ..." - http://aloha.net/~mikesch//antichrist.htm

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

"... according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition, 1593 edition, and a 1603 edition of his commentary are now online. ..." - http://aloha.net/~mikesch//antichrist.htm

Nope, the Lord didn't skip the entire church age and jump right into the Great Tribulation. He said this in Rev. 1:19 - "the things which you have seen, the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." The "things which are" in the middle are the section of the 7 letters in Rev. 2-3, that encompasses the entire church age, and Catholic church is the Thyatira church that is corrupted by Jezebel.

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

Nope, the Lord didn't skip the entire church age and jump right into the Great Tribulation. He said this in Rev. 1:19 - "the things which you have seen, the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." The "things which are" in the middle are the section of the 7 letters in Rev. 2-3, that encompasses the entire church age, and Catholic church is the Thyatira church that is corrupted by Jezebel.

Why then do you accept Thyatira's doctrines? Rev. 17 answers that.

You accept Roman doctrine on prophecy, and even on the doctrine of Michael, even though the whole of the Reformation denied Rome in both, and taught what is presently held by myself, rather than yourself. Documentation upon request.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Why then do you accept Thyatira's doctrines? Rev. 17 answers that.

You accept Roman doctrine on prophecy, and even on the doctrine of Michael, even though the whole of the Reformation denied Rome in both, and taught what is presently held by myself, rather than yourself. Documentation upon request.

Isn't preterism their official doctrine on bible prophecies? That everything was already fulfilled, 70AD was the end, Nero as long as the Roman Empire was the Beast, and the presence of the catholic church is the millennial kingdom?

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

Isn't preterism their official doctrine on bible prophecies? That everything was already fulfilled, 70AD was the end, Nero as long as the Roman Empire was the Beast, and the presence of the catholic church is the millennial kingdom?

No, Rome holds at least 4-5 doctrines simultaneously, because of the Jesuits, in regards prophecy.

1. Futurism (Various)

2. Preterism (Various)

3. Amillennialism

4. Allegorism

5. Hyper-literalism

They hold to each depending on who they are attempting to counter, or the individual believes. They outright refuse historicism since such clearly identifies the papacy as antichrist.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, Rome holds at least 4-5 doctrines simultaneously, because of the Jesuits, in regards prophecy.

1. Futurism (Various)

2. Preterism (Various)

3. Amillennialism

4. Allegorism

5. Hyper-literalism

They hold to each depending on who they are attempting to counter, or the individual believes. They outright refuse historicism since such clearly identifies the papacy as antichrist.

The papacy is still identified as the False Prophet, the conglomerate of all false religions on earth in futurism.

 

[TheLearner]

"princes" in that verse simply means 'ruler'. You are saying that "God" is not one of the rulers?

God is the chief ruler of righteousness.

Satan is the chief ruler of unrighteousness.

Is God one of the chief rulers then?

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Chief+Ruler&version=KJV
God is not that low on the ladder of authority.

 

[TheLearner]

Really??? This is your response??? Princes are rulers. I was referring to the underlying Hebrew root word, 'sar, which word means ruler, and in plurality means rulers. I do hope you take the time to understand what I have said, and not simply attempt to faultfind.

Googled Prince's are rulers bible wife will be home soon

 

[tourist]

Is Lucifer not named? Is he not an angel?

Isa 14:12: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

Rev 9:11: "And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon."

I personally think that "Got Questions" is more like "Giving Confusion". Trust the Bible and the Holy Ghost instead.

I believe that Lucifer was an archangel.