If Jesus was Michael than why did he not rebuke Satan himself?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#61
Unrelated to the topic:

John 5:26-29 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
26 Life comes from the Father himself. So the Father has also allowed the Son to give life. 27 And the Father has given him the power to judge all people because he is the Son of Man.

28 “Don’t be surprised at this. A time is coming when all people who are dead and in their graves will hear his voice. 29 Then they will come out of their graves. Those who did good in this life will rise and have eternal life. But those who did evil will rise to be judged guilty.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#62
1 Thessalonians 4:16 Expanded Bible (EXB)
16 The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a loud ·command [or shout], ·with [or accompanied by; or preceded by] the voice of the archangel [C a leading or ruling angel; Dan. 10:13; Jude 9], and with the trumpet call of God. And ·those who have died believing [L the dead] in Christ will rise first [1 Cor. 15:51–57].

It makes more sense that Michael precedes or goes along with Jesus announcing the King Jesus to all.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#63
Michael the archangel is mentioned only five times in the Bible (Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7), and yet never do these passages indicate that he is to be equated with the preincarnate Christ, nor with the ascended Jesus. First Thessalonians 4:16 also alludes to “an archangel,” and, although the name Michael is not mentioned, this is the passage Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently cite as proof of Jesus being the archangel. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first” (emp. added). Supposedly, since Jesus is described as descending from heaven “with the voice of an archangel,” then He must be the archangel Michael. However, this verse does not teach that Jesus is an archangel, but that at His Second Coming He will be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Just as He will be attended “with a shout” and “with the trumpet of God,” so will He be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Question: If Jesus’ descension from heaven “with the voice of an archangel” makes Him (as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim) the archangel Michael, then does His descent “with the trumpet of God” not also make Him God? Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this latter conclusion, yet they accept the first. Such inconsistency is one proof of their erroneous teachings about Jesus.

One of the strongest arguments against Jesus being an angel is found in the book of Hebrews. In chapter one, the writer of Hebrews showed the superiority of Jesus over the angelic beings, and contrasted Him with them.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=1473

Hebrews 1

The Greatness of God's Son
4 The Son was made greater than the angels, just as the name that God gave him is greater than theirs. 5 For God never said to any of his angels,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.”
Nor did God say about any angel,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son.”
6 But when God was about to send his first-born Son into the world, he said,

All of God's angels must worship him.”
7 But about the angels God said,

“God makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.”
8 About the Son, however, God said:
“Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever!
You rule over your people with justice.
9 You love what is right and hate what is wrong.
That is why God, your God, has chosen you
and has given you the joy of an honor far greater
than he gave to your companions.”
10 He also said,
“You, Lord, in the beginning created the earth,
and with your own hands you made the heavens.
11 They will disappear, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like clothes.
12 You will fold them up like a coat,
and they will be changed like clothes.
But you are always the same,
and your life never ends.”
13 God never said to any of his angels:
“Sit here at my right side
until I put your enemies
as a footstool under your feet.”
14 What are the angels, then? They are spirits who serve God and are sent by him to help those who are to receive salvation.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#64
Now that I looked at your proof texts, please respond directly to the OP.

Thanks friend,
daniel
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#65
Hi andor. Are you posting those verses to say Jesus is Michael the arcangel or that He is not Michael the arcangel? Just asking for clarification. Thanks!

IN HIM,
bluto
Hi bluto those are common proof texts of both JW's and SDA to claim Jesus is Michael.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#66
Michael the archangel is mentioned only five times in the Bible (Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7), and yet never do these passages indicate that he is to be equated with the preincarnate Christ, nor with the ascended Jesus. First Thessalonians 4:16 also alludes to “an archangel,” and, although the name Michael is not mentioned, this is the passage Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently cite as proof of Jesus being the archangel. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first” (emp. added). Supposedly, since Jesus is described as descending from heaven “with the voice of an archangel,” then He must be the archangel Michael. However, this verse does not teach that Jesus is an archangel, but that at His Second Coming He will be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Just as He will be attended “with a shout” and “with the trumpet of God,” so will He be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Question: If Jesus’ descension from heaven “with the voice of an archangel” makes Him (as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim) the archangel Michael, then does His descent “with the trumpet of God” not also make Him God? Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this latter conclusion, yet they accept the first. Such inconsistency is one proof of their erroneous teachings about Jesus.

One of the strongest arguments against Jesus being an angel is found in the book of Hebrews. In chapter one, the writer of Hebrews showed the superiority of Jesus over the angelic beings, and contrasted Him with them.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=1473

Hebrews 1

The Greatness of God's Son
4 The Son was made greater than the angels, just as the name that God gave him is greater than theirs. 5 For God never said to any of his angels,

“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.”
Nor did God say about any angel,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son.”
6 But when God was about to send his first-born Son into the world, he said,

All of God's angels must worship him.”
7 But about the angels God said,

“God makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.”
8 About the Son, however, God said:
“Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever!
You rule over your people with justice.
9 You love what is right and hate what is wrong.
That is why God, your God, has chosen you
and has given you the joy of an honor far greater
than he gave to your companions.”
10 He also said,
“You, Lord, in the beginning created the earth,
and with your own hands you made the heavens.
11 They will disappear, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like clothes.
12 You will fold them up like a coat,
and they will be changed like clothes.
But you are always the same,
and your life never ends.”
13 God never said to any of his angels:
“Sit here at my right side
until I put your enemies
as a footstool under your feet.”
14 What are the angels, then? They are spirits who serve God and are sent by him to help those who are to receive salvation.


The word angel without adding this or that simply means messenger. One sent apostle. It does not denote form but the unseen work performed. They can be human messengers or other kinds not seen. How beautiful are their feet . In the last days he spoke through his Son as a messenger of the father.

Is there a higher messenger than the Son who humbles himself under the authority of a loving father?

Not just to any angel as a messenger of the father. To Jesus alone “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”
Nor did God say about just any angel,“ I will be his Father and he will be my Son.” But Jesus alone.

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,562
13,546
113
58
#67
Hi bluto those are common proof texts of both JW's and SDA to claim Jesus is Michael.
I wonder why it's so important for JW's and SDA's to believe that Jesus is Michael? Since JW's don't believe that Jesus is God, I can see their motivation for believing such nonsense, yet I've heard SDA's say they believe that Jesus is God, so what would be their motivation for believing that Jesus is Michael? :unsure: I was once in a discussion with a SDA who strongly supported the belief that Jesus is Michael and he went on to twist the scriptures (in shady lawyer fashion) in order to try and make his case and he also cited numerous commentaries in an effort to support his claim, but I wasn't buying his arguments for one second. :cautious: Jude 1:9 clearly settles the issue for me.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#68
I wonder why it's so important for JW's and SDA's to believe that Jesus is Michael? Since JW's don't believe that Jesus is God, I can see their motivation for believing such nonsense, yet I've heard SDA's say they believe that Jesus is God, so what would be their motivation for believing that Jesus is Michael? :unsure: I was once in a discussion with a SDA who strongly supported the belief that Jesus is Michael and he went on to twist the scriptures (in shady lawyer fashion) in order to try and make his case and he also cited numerous commentaries in an effort to support his claim, but I wasn't buying his arguments for one second. :cautious: Jude 1:9 clearly settles the issue for me.
God is not a man as us and neither is there any fleshly mediator called a daysman of earth to stand between God not seen and man seen as a infallible umpire .Something that is attributed to the Pope .A place Jesus refused to stand.

I think Jude 1:9 is not any different than any approach where the Son of man, Jesus is shown restricted of power seeing he was following a chain of command orders from on high.

When called good master he replied only one is good God not seen. Or the full power of the Holy Spirit that living in Jesus was not made manifest according to the flesh

Jesus humbled himself under the hearing of faith just as us. Yet without sin .Not like us.

John 16:7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#69
The word angel without adding this or that simply means messenger. One sent apostle. It does not denote form but the unseen work performed. They can be human messengers or other kinds not seen. How beautiful are their feet . In the last days he spoke through his Son as a messenger of the father.

Is there a higher messenger than the Son who humbles himself under the authority of a loving father?

Not just to any angel as a messenger of the father. To Jesus alone “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”
Nor did God say about just any angel,“ I will be his Father and he will be my Son.” But Jesus alone.

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Hi Gary I understand where that is coming from. But, Hebrews 1, the meaning is from context. Also, what you did is a word study fallacy known as Overload fallacy. This a common mistake when using Strong's Concordance.

Here are a few reasons why it is problematic to use Strong's Concordance as a lexicon:

  • Lexical ambiguity: Consider the following sentence: "She is looking for a match." Is the subject trying to light a candle or find a romantic partner? The 'gloss' definition here is ambiguous and gives us no help disambiguating the meaning in this context. Grammatical features should also be examined, which the Strong's Concordance offers no help with.1
  • Nuances of meaning: Sometimes there is more than one meaning listed for a term (this is often the case for prepositions, but there are also verbs that change meaning depending on their voice and other grammatical features). Strong's Concordance offers no help when determining which (if any) gloss is most appropriate in context. Often knowledge of the original languages is required to determine what grammatical and contextual features are present in order to determine the correct gloss (if any). Also, authors can use the same word differently in differing contexts (such as James' and Paul's usage of the word 'faith').
The meaning of a lexeme is that intended by the author using it. The Strong's Concordance often sheds little light on what this meaning is in context. Therefore, claiming the meaning of a specific word in a given context is X on the basis of the Strong's Concordance is not a reliable claim.

Etymological fallacies
I often see folks try to determine the meaning of words in specific contexts using their root lemmata. The problem here is that etymology and the later meaning of a word are often orthogonal concepts. Here are some examples:

Etymology is not the primary tool for understanding the meaning of a word in a specific context, and it is often meaningless when making such a determination.

What if the Strong's Concordance is linked to a lexicon?
Several free online tools have linked Strong's Concordance entries to lexicon entries. Unfortunately, most of them use either Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon or Smith's Bible Dictionary for definitions, both of which were published prior to 1895. As I've cautioned about elsewhere, these resources are considered to be obsolete by scholars (and contain much inaccurate information).

https://hermeneutics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/923/strongs-is-a-concordance-not-a-lexicon

Strong’s is sometimes in error
It is my habit whenever an author claims “The Hebrew (or Greek) means …, I will look up his statement, not in Strong’s, but in a dictionary. I happen to use a couple of modern works: “The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament”, and “The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” (I find the more common “Vine’s” neither comprehensive nor always accurate.) Usually, I make no changes: but quite a few times I have felt compelled to change what was written.
https://www.tidings.org/wp/strongs-concordance-its-use-and-abuse/?v=7516fd43adaa
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#70
Note: Thayer was an Unitarian. It is good to refute JW's, but not for orthodox theology.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#71
I wonder why it's so important for JW's and SDA's to believe that Jesus is Michael? Since JW's don't believe that Jesus is God, I can see their motivation for believing such nonsense, yet I've heard SDA's say they believe that Jesus is God, so what would be their motivation for believing that Jesus is Michael? :unsure: I was once in a discussion with a SDA who strongly supported the belief that Jesus is Michael and he went on to twist the scriptures (in shady lawyer fashion) in order to try and make his case and he also cited numerous commentaries in an effort to support his claim, but I wasn't buying his arguments for one second. :cautious: Jude 1:9 clearly settles the issue for me.
Many of the leading Adventists were Arians includign Uraiah Smith(Editor of their books), James White(Ellen White's husband). They were part of a movement called the Christian Connextion an Arian(denies deity of Christ). Mainline SDA today are Trinitians. And, believe Jesus is God.

https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/2003-1/2003-1-08.pdf

Google Christian Connextion
Google semi-arian ministries adventist present truth ministries
Google "Daniel Marsh" forum Trinity Seventh Day Adventist

feel free to copy and paste my responses here.

https://forums.catholic.com/t/which-denomination-believes-in-this/51466/36
https://www.worthychristianforums.c...at-large/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-2967439
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/c...ntism/62825-sda-trinity-and-semi-arians/page3
https://forums.catholic.com/t/which-denomination-believes-in-this/51466/36 links to follow there
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-semi-arianism.7981257/
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/c...ntism/62825-sda-trinity-and-semi-arians/page3
Google semi-arian ministries adventist independent ministries
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#72
Semi Arian SDA quotes:

“Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. HE WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED. HE IS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER, SO THAT IN HIS VERY NATURE HE IS GOD; and since this is so ‘it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.’ Col. 1:19 ... While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that he had no beginning, WHILE CHRIST'S PERSONALITY HAD A BEGINNING.” — (E.J. Waggoner, Signs of the Times, April 8, 1889)

“The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only begotten son of God.” HE IS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2, margin. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN CHRIST PROCEEDED FORTH AND CAME FROM GOD, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning…” (E. J. Waggoner, 1890, Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 19-22)

“CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED; Satan was created, not begotten. As THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON Christ could enter fully into the councils of God. Because he could not do this as Christ did, envy sprang up in the heart of Satan, and he began to determine, I will exalt myself. He began to stir up rebellion, to say, God is arbitrary, and he began also to get his sympathisers. “We are in slavery, and I have a better plan of government. Choose me as leader, exalt me, and then I will exalt you.” Do you not see the same principle that has been in the world ever since the fall? You exalt me and I will exalt you,-perhaps. {E.J. Waggoner Bible Echo and Signs of the Times February 17, 1896, p. 52.12}

“God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be,—a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity,—appeared the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1. This uncreated Word was the Being, who, in the fulness of time, was made flesh, and dwelt among us. His beginning was not like that of any other being in the universe. It is set forth in the mysterious expressions, “his [God’s] only begotten Son” (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9), “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14), and, “I proceeded forth and came from God.” John 8:42. Thus it appears that by some divine impulse or process, not creation, known only to Omniscience, and possible only to Omnipotence, the Son of God appeared. And then the Holy Spirit (by an infirmity of translation called “the Holy Ghost”), the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the divine afflatus and medium of their power, representative of them both (Ps. 139:7), was in existence also.” (Uriah Smith, 1898, Looking Unto Jesus, page 10)

"YOU ARE MISTAKEN IN SUPPOSING THAT S.D. ADVENTISTS TEACH THAT CHRIST WAS EVER CREATED. THEY BELIEVE, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT HE WAS “BEGOTTEN” OF THE FATHER, AND THAT HE CAN PROPERLY BE CALLED GOD AND WORSHIPED AS SUCH.”(W.H. Little John Question No. 96, Review and Herald, April 17, 1883, The commentary, Scripture questions, 'Answers by W. H. Littlejohn)

“Elder Porter then said that IN SPEAKING OF CHRIST HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID CREATED, BUT “BEGOTTEN.” Begotten is the exact language of the Scripture. The new birth which we must experience to become the children of God is a new creation. We are born of the Spirit of God. This is beyond our comprehension. NEITHER CAN WE TELL HOW CHRIST WAS BEGOTTNE OF THE FATHER. This is one of the “deep things of God.” {General Conference and Daily Bulletin February 2-4, 1893, p. 120.5}

“It is for the well-being and happiness of God’s creatures that some of his intelligences should receive “gifts” and “powers” which others do not. UPON CHRIST, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER (ALL OTHER BEINGS WERE CREATED BY CHRIST) was bestowed creative, life-giving, and law-making power. In these he was made equal with the eternal Father. Upon no other being were bestowed such gifts. With this power Christ not only created all things, but he up-holds all life in this and every shining world. We read of him, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Colossians 1:14-17. {GCDB February 2-4, 1893, p. 99.11}

“As the absolute Son, He, who 'in the beginning was with God, and was God,' WAS BEGOTTEN BEFORE TIMES ETERNAL; as the Son, who was the-God-man, He was begotten by the resurrection from the dead. So shall we be 'sons of God, being sons, of the resurrection.' Luke 20:26." (W.W. Prescott Signs of the Times, Jan 8, 1929)

"...ANY IDEA THAT THE SON IS PART OF THE CREATION ITSELF IS UTTERLY FOREIGN TO PAUL’S CONCEPTION. See Colossians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:6-8. Moffatt makes the expression, "the first-born of all creation,' plainer by translating the Greek: "born first before all the creation;" and with this Goodspeed is in substantial agreement.

"THE WORD “BORN” IS USED BECAUSE, IN CONTRASTING THE CREATOR* WITH HIS CREATION, IT POSTULATES THE NATURE OF THE LORD’S ORIGIN. HE WAS NOT CREATED AS WERE CREATURES, BUT WAS BORN OUT OF GOD AS GOD; AND SO IS OF THE SAME NATURE AS THE FATHER. Just as a human son is born human by nature because his father is human, so the divine Son of God is by nature "born" God because His Father is God" ("William G. Wirth "The 'Signs" Question Corner" Signs of the Times, August 5th, 1930)

caps in source of quote.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#73
On the Holy Spirit they taught back then, see the confusion:

“‘I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.’ (John 14:18). The divine Spirit that the world’s Redeemer promised to send is the PRESENCE AND POWER of God.”-- (Signs of The Times, Nov. 23, 1891)

“In the plan of restoring in men the divine image, it was provided that the Holy Spirit should move upon human minds, and be AS THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST, a molding agency upon human character.” --(RH, Feb. 12, 1895)

“They have ONE God and ONE Saviour; and ONE Spirit--the Spirit of Christ--is to bring unity into their ranks.” — (E.G. White, 9T 189.3, 1909)

"The terms ‘Holy Ghost’, are a harsh and repulsive translation. It should be ‘Holy Spirit’ (hagion pneuma) in every instance. THIS SPIRIT IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST; the Spirit being the same whether it is spoken of as pertaining to God or Christ. But respecting this Spirit, the Bible uses expressions which cannot be harmonized with the idea that it is a person like the Father and the Son. Rather it is shown to be a divine influence from them both, the medium which represents their presence and by which they have knowledge and power through all the universe, when not personally present." (Uriah Smith, Review & Herald, October 28, 1890)

“THE HOLY SPIRT IS A PERSON, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. When this witness is borne, it carries with it its own evidence. At such times we believe and are sure that we are the children of God. . .” {Ev 616.6}

“THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS A PERSONALITY, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. HE MUST ALSO BE A DIVINE PERSON, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."--Manuscript 20, 1906. {Ev 617.1}

http://www.asitreads.com/blog/2017/9/21/were-seventh-day-adventist-pioneers-arians-or-semi-arians
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,220
1,583
113
68
Brighton, MI
#75