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

“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}

Exactly. Furthermore any angel (including an archangel) is a creature. So how could the Creator be a creature? Absurdity is built into this false teaching.

Do you @TheLearner believe as the SDAs then or now, Jesus as part of a trinity? Is the Holy Spirit a separate person? Can you separate that Spirit from the Father or from Christ? The Holy Spirit is what makes the Godhead united and omnipresent-omnipotent-omniscience. The Holy Spirit will make us united with the Godhead upon our resurrection. I don't call that a person. What do you think? Are you an SDA?

“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)

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:

• The word 'awful' originally had a positive connotation, but in current English contexts its meaning is generally negative.
• 'December' etymologically means 'tenth month' based on its Latin roots, but it would be silly to argue that it is in the wrong location on our calendars on this basis.
• Another favorite example of linguists is the word 'butterfly', which no sensible person would understand as an airborne dairy product.

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

Heb. 1:13, 14
Whoops! No creatures here!

Are you alleging that angels are not created beings? *Ministering spirits* means spirit beings who were CREATED by God to minister to Him and to His saints.

Where do people come up with such nonsense as *No creatures here*?

Yes like the word cult came form a worship term or fat chance and slim chance sharing the same.

The word Angel like the word apostle have been destroyed by catholic men violating the warning not to add new meaning to a word or subtract form it (Deu 4::2 ) Adding new meaning to the word makes its intended purpose without effect. We must be careful on how we hear using the proper prescriptions

Below he speaks of John the Baptist a angel sent as a apostle .

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

Moses an angel the same way .

Exodus4: 12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send.

Moses that time refused to be used to become an apostle an agnel with the message from God he in effect said give it to another apostle this time.

Aggelos – either human old and new testament (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel )

Context.

Hebrews 1:1-2 King James Version (KJV) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The Son of man Jesus has spoken as messenger (angel) the high Apostle (sent one) with a message from God .His food is to do the will of the father and finish the message

Even on these Christians message (angel) boards we must be careful we may need to hear a message of God or be used to offer one as two three working together under the authority of his name .The bible

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained "angels" unawares.

Hi bluto those are common proof texts of both JW's and SDA to claim Jesus is Michael.

I said nothing against their being created. I just said I don't believe they fall within the definition of "creature." Are they not all around us, yet unseen spirits?

I was recently in a discussion on a different Christian forum with someone who sounded very much like a SDA, but remained elusive about his church affiliation. He was trying to convince me that Jesus is Michael the archangel, yet I shared with him:

"For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee?'" (Hebrews 1:5)
"But of the Son He says: Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.. (Hebrews 1:8a).
"But to which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet?' Are they [the angels] not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:13-14)

He responded by saying:

In citing Hebrews 1:5, 8a, 13-14 that I am making a category error of thinking that it refers to all "angels" without exception and if I considered the context, I would see this is of created angelic hosts, and not referring to the uncreated "Angel of the LORD" (The Son).

He also went on to say:

Hebrews 1:1-3 told us as much, that the Son is the Highest Messenger of the Father, and that He holds such an office as "messenger" for His Father and that He is not the only one who holds such an office. Hebrews 1:9, in its context, told us that the created hosts of Heaven (like Gabriel) are His (the Son's) "fellows" in their "office" of messengers (angels). The word "angel" only means "messenger, or ambassador or that which carries a message", and does not inherently mean created at all, ever. Context always dictates further identification.

He then further concluded:

The Son is called throughout scripture, "the Angel of the LORD" (in proper contexts) and the Son is the Highest Messenger of the Father and is in charge of the created angelic hosts and is ruler over them.

Does he sound SDA to you?