Do SDA believe Michael is God?

  • 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.

Duckybill

Well-known member
Aug 16, 2021
1,145
221
63
"princes" in that verse simply means 'ruler'.
Princes "Plural" is ruler "Singular"?
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?
Jesus is the ONLY Savior! You have ZERO NT that says Michael is THE Savior! Satan has given you a phony savior!

Acts 4:10-12 (KJV)
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
How many times is Michael in the NT? How many times is Jesus in the NT? Jesus is my Savior. Not Michael, "one of the chief princes"! God isn't "one of the chief princes"!

Daniel 10:13 (NKJV)
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.
1. Michael is one of the "chief" "princes" (ruler). [A.] Two main princes (rulers) in the Great Controversy (Rev. 12), Michael (Prince of Peace) & Dragon (Prince of Devils). [B.] There are many chief princes (Isaiah 43:28 KJB) of the sanctuary (High Priests), and Jesus is among them, as High Priest. [C.] There are many rulers of kingdoms, and Jesus is a ruler, as King over Israel (Numbers 23:21 KJB) and Revelation 19:16 shows that Jesus is a King over other Kings (Christians) that does not negate that He is "one of the chief princes (rulers)", as shown. [D.] Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45 KJB), and as such is the Head representative of the family of this world, while there are head representatives of the other unfallen worlds, also called "sons of God" (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, etc KJB). [E.]. Michael as Archangel is then also one among other Archangels (though He is the highest), such as Gabriel, also an archangel. Even satan is an arch angel. [F.] Among the "apostles", Jesus is the Highest "Apostle" (Hebrews 3:1 KJB). That Jesus is the only begotten Son (same nature of Deity, as His Father), does not mean that Jesus is also not among His "fellows" (Hebrews 1:9 KJB, heavenly angelic messengers like Gabriel) as highest messenger, anointed above them.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
Princes "Plural" is ruler "Singular"?
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.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
NONE of which say Michael is the Savior!
Revelation 12 did say so, but you rejected that as evidence. It's like an hardened atheist that rejects any evidence for God revealed to them. It is not that there is not evidence, it is that you reject the clear evidence.
 

Duckybill

Well-known member
Aug 16, 2021
1,145
221
63
1. Michael is one of the "chief" "princes" (ruler). [A.] Two main princes (rulers) in the Great Controversy (Rev. 12), Michael (Prince of Peace) & Dragon (Prince of Devils). [B.] There are many chief princes (Isaiah 43:28 KJB) of the sanctuary (High Priests), and Jesus is among them, as High Priest. [C.] There are many rulers of kingdoms, and Jesus is a ruler, as King over Israel (Numbers 23:21 KJB) and Revelation 19:16 shows that Jesus is a King over other Kings (Christians) that does not negate that He is "one of the chief princes (rulers)", as shown. [D.] Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45 KJB), and as such is the Head representative of the family of this world, while there are head representatives of the other unfallen worlds, also called "sons of God" (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, etc KJB). [E.]. Michael as Archangel is then also one among other Archangels (though He is the highest), such as Gabriel, also an archangel. Even satan is an arch angel. [F.] Among the "apostles", Jesus is the Highest "Apostle" (Hebrews 3:1 KJB). That Jesus is the only begotten Son (same nature of Deity, as His Father), does not mean that Jesus is also not among His "fellows" (Hebrews 1:9 KJB, heavenly angelic messengers like Gabriel) as highest messenger, anointed above them.
NOWHERE in the Bible does it call Michael our Savior! You're making it up!
 

Duckybill

Well-known member
Aug 16, 2021
1,145
221
63
Revelation 12 did say so, but you rejected that as evidence. It's like an hardened atheist that rejects any evidence for God revealed to them. It is not that there is not evidence, it is that you reject the clear evidence.
You can have Michael as your savior. I'll stick with Jesus and His Blood!
 

Duckybill

Well-known member
Aug 16, 2021
1,145
221
63
Revelation 12 did say so, but you rejected that as evidence. It's like an hardened atheist that rejects any evidence for God revealed to them. It is not that there is not evidence, it is that you reject the clear evidence.
Quote where it says Michael is our Savior! It DOESN'T! Show us where the blood of Michael washes away our sins!
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
I actually do believe that Revelation is largely written in parallel structure, but not this individual chapter. You've just read a lot of stuffs that's not in there.
Really??? What of the following is inaccurate?

Notice the chiastic structure.

[A1] Revelation 12:1-5 KJB = Woman, Child and Dragon

[B1] Revelation 12:6 KJB = Woman in Wilderness for 1,260 days [years]

[C1] Revelation 12:7-9 KJB = War between Michael and Satan in Heaven

[D1] Revelation 12:10 KJB = Cross, Power of Christ, His Victory

[D2] Revelation 12:11 KJB = Lamb, Blood of Christ, Their [overcoming saints] Victory in Him

[C2] Revelation 12:12 KJB = Dragon permanently cast down to Earth fights against Jesus' body

[B2] Revelation 12:13-16 KJB = Woman in Wilderness, for a time, and times, and half a time [aka, 3 1/2 times or 1,260 days [years]]

[A2] Revelation 12:17 KJB = Woman, her Seed and Dragon

An example of another parallelism within the greater:

Revelation 12:7 KJB - And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

[A1] Michael – Leader

[B1] his angels – Followers

[A2] Dragon – Leader

[B2] his angels - Followers
 

Duckybill

Well-known member
Aug 16, 2021
1,145
221
63
Really??? What of the following is inaccurate?

Notice the chiastic structure.

[A1] Revelation 12:1-5 KJB = Woman, Child and Dragon

[B1] Revelation 12:6 KJB = Woman in Wilderness for 1,260 days [years]

[C1] Revelation 12:7-9 KJB = War between Michael and Satan in Heaven

[D1] Revelation 12:10 KJB = Cross, Power of Christ, His Victory

[D2] Revelation 12:11 KJB = Lamb, Blood of Christ, Their [overcoming saints] Victory in Him

[C2] Revelation 12:12 KJB = Dragon permanently cast down to Earth fights against Jesus' body

[B2] Revelation 12:13-16 KJB = Woman in Wilderness, for a time, and times, and half a time [aka, 3 1/2 times or 1,260 days [years]]

[A2] Revelation 12:17 KJB = Woman, her Seed and Dragon

An example of another parallelism within the greater:

Revelation 12:7 KJB - And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

[A1] Michael – Leader

[B1] his angels – Followers

[A2] Dragon – Leader

[B2] his angels - Followers
Still waiting for you to quote Scripture that says Michael is our Savior. There ain't any! ONLY Jesus.
 
Feb 7, 2022
646
75
28
That's what I said. :)
You are saying Malachi 3:1 Hebrew doesn't call Jesus mal'ak? Don't the created mal'ak worship Him?

You are saying Malachi 3:1 so called lxx doesn't call Jesus aggelos? Don't the created aggelos worship Him?

You are saying Malachi 3:1 doesn't call Jesus messenger/Angel? Don't the created messengers/angels worship Him?
 

Duckybill

Well-known member
Aug 16, 2021
1,145
221
63
Acts 13:23 (NKJV)
23 God raised up for Israel a Savior--Jesus--

Amen, no Michael!
 

Duckybill

Well-known member
Aug 16, 2021
1,145
221
63
Already did earlier, can't you go back and read it? Hadn't you read it before?
Philippians 3:20 (NKJV)
20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

No Michael!
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,361
16,324
113
69
Tennessee
Read the context.

1. Isa 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

2. Mat 12:24: "But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils."

Prince of Good

Prince of Evil

Unless you think Jesus is "the Prince" of evil? I don't think you do.
The context is 'one of the chief princes". Does not say 'the' chief prince. Therefore, Michael the archangel is not Jesus. Not at all sure of the relevance of the verses you provided regarding Michael the archangel. Yes, Jesus has many names but one of them is not Michael. It would be degrading and disrespectful to consider Jesus to be 'one' of the chief princes rather than 'the' chief prince.