Who Is The Archangel Michael ?

[George]

1 hour ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

I will now flip the questions back to you.  Why do you feel that you need to not see Michael as Jesus, and what are the reasons for that? (barring the subject of His (the Son's) Deity, as that is not an issue here), and need to continue to post against me (I do not mind, just want you to answer the questions you ask me from the opposing side)?

First of all, whenever Scriptures are not clear, then I don't go out and teach something that isn't clear.

Secondly, the only reason I even post theophanies is because of its usefulness in sharing the gospel with Jewish people, and any group that denies the deity of Jesus.

But to connect a theophany -- to an actual created being -- an angel, this is the problem.  I realize you say over and over again the "archangel" you believe is not created. 

But you're actually defending cultlike positions ... aka Jehovahs' witness.   To quote JW doctrine, "Michael the archangel, first creation of Jehovah-God, who came to earth as a man, died and rose as a spirit.” 

While you seem to deny this, the doctrine which you seem to be espousing is very closely related to the 7th day Adventist understanding. 

And the problem with 7th day Adventist is the issue of "investigative judgment" and in essence Jesus' work was not finished 2000 years ago, but an ongoing work ... and "investigating" who is keeping the commandment of God ... thus falling into the trap Paul warned the church in Galatia about.

So my next question is ... did you learn this doctrine from the 7th day adventists?

[ShinyGospelShoes]

58 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

Right, I have twigged what is happening. Your methods and hyper-critical comments are so familiar. I'm done.

I took this at face value:

" Because I grew up in a cult, I recognise my teaching and understanding of what the Bible says was often incorrect, please be patient with me if I word a question wrongly, I have a lot to unlearn. Sometimes (often) I do not realise I have learned something incorrectly until it is pointed out to me. Please gently correct me if i am erring. "

I was correcting you in the only way I know, that my own statement was seen clearly.  Apologies if so doing offended you.  I would ask that you at least please continue to read the evidences as each presents, and pray to God about what is said and study to shew yourself approved.

Sorry to see you leave.  I wasn't quite sure at which part I offended.  I wasn't intending to.

[ShinyGospelShoes]

19 minutes ago, George said:

And the problem with 7th day Adventist is the issue of "investigative judgment" and in essence Jesus' work was not finished 2000 years ago, but an ongoing work ... and "investigating" who is keeping the commandment of God ...

Non-sequitur to the entire OP (Michael)., and you also seem to have a great misunderstanding about what Seventh-day Adventists teach on what happened at Calvary, but I do not intend to get into it in this thread.  I am already having to deal with so many other off-topic conversations that are trying to creep in ("sons of God", "WTS/JW", "LDS", etc).

[ShinyGospelShoes]

22 minutes ago, George said:

So my next question is ... did you learn this doctrine from the 7th day adventists?

Interesting question, but again, non-sequitur.  It would depend on how I define '7th day adventist' in answering that question.  For instance, Jesus kept the 7th day and taught about His second coming.  So from that perspective ... again, way off OP (Michael).

While Seventh-day Adventists do indeed teach this very theology, the Reformation, long before Seventh-day Adventists taught it (as already cited).   Luther, Melanchthon, Hengstengberg, Oeclampadius, Genevans, and thousands of others, of which a brief listing was given.

[ShinyGospelShoes]

1 minute ago, maryjayne said:

I have yet to see you present any accurate evidence for your stance.

The Son (Jesus) is identified as "Angel of the LORD" in the OT.  Do you see that as correct and accurate?

[ShinyGospelShoes]

1 hour ago, George said:

But you're actually defending cultlike positions ... aka Jehovahs' witness.   To quote JW doctrine, "Michael the archangel, first creation of Jehovah-God, who came to earth as a man, died and rose as a spirit.” 

While you seem to deny this

I am defending scriptural truth, and not once have I defended "cultlike positions", and all the while stated I was not for such positions, and even wrote against those positions in this thread on several occasions.

The "JW doctrine that 'Michael the archangel, first creation ..." is heresy in the first degree and grievously so.  The Son is eternal, uncreated, self-existing, I AM (the Son), etc.  The last part about "rose as a spirit'" is just plain error, as may be seen in their own 'silver sword', just look up in their NWT:

Luke 24:39 NWT - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.” - Link

Luk_24:39  KJB Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Again, as shown in several instances, the WTS/JW got their doctrine from the "bible Students" which stemmed from the "advent" movement in the 19th cent (mid 1800's), which carried a large portion of Reformation doctrine into it, of which the WTS later distorted, by mixing Reformation and Roman Catholicism doctrines.

It is Romanism which teaches that Michael is nothing but a created being, an angel by nature, for they did this to increase their angel-veneration (worship; dulia).  It does this for a specific reason, which I shall not get into here.

I do not "seem" to deny it.  I wholeheartedly have denied it on several occasions.  The Son of God is eternal Deity, always was with the Father.  There was never a time in eternity past when the Son was not.  There was never a time in eternity past when the Son was not equal with the Father.

Edited August 30, 2019 by ShinyGospelShoes

[George]

As someone who studied extensively the history of the Church, when someone quotes people as a reason to believe, I'll be the first one to check it out.  You quoted Martin Luther ... should you throw away the book of Revelation?  Because this is his preface of the Book of Revelation.

Quote

Martin Luther's Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)

About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

The 1522 “Preface to the Revelation of St. John” in Luther’s translation of the New Testament. Pages 398-399 in Luther’s Works Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I (ed. E. Theodore Bachmann; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960).

Usually when people say that this person said it ... or that person said it .. it's a snippet ... to try and prove a point.   You can snippet out many an argument and get a wrong conclusion. 

So I didn't see you denied being taught it by the 7th day adventist church.

Anyway, I'm off for the weekend ... I'll continue this on Monday.

God bless ya'll

George

[ShinyGospelShoes]

5 minutes ago, George said:

Usually when people say that this person said it ... or that person said it .. it's a snippet ... to try and prove a point.   You can snippet out many an argument and get a wrong conclusion. 

I never said Luther made everyone believe what he said.  I simply stated he did teach it as others also stated he did (citation upon request).

Martin Luther (AD 10 November 1483 – AD 18 February 1546) was a German monk [Order of St. Augustine], Catholic priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of the 16th-century movement in Christianity known later as the Protestant Reformation, "the Dr. Luther" of the Lutheran movement.

[German] D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe; D. Martin Luthers Deutsche Bibel 1522-1546, Elfter Band Zweite Halft Die Ubersetzung des Prophetenteils des Alten Testaments (Daniel bis Maleachi). Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger / Weimar; 1960.

Full Text of Page 108:

"... [Page 108; 1541 Translation; Page 109; 1545 Translation] 1541 ... Er nennets gepflanzt, Denn der Bapst hat ein Paradis aller luft zu Rom, oder in der Kirchen, gemacht, da er aller Welt, Gut, Gewalt und Ehre, frey nach seinem willen braucht.

BVR selbigen zeit, wird sich auffmachen der grosse Furst Michael, der fur die Kinder deines Volks stehet, Denn es wird ein solche trübselige Zeit sein als nicht gewest ist, sint das Leute gewest sind, bis auss diese zeit.

WIE wol Michael eins Engels name ist, doch verstehen wir hie, gleich wie auch Apoc. XII. den hErrn Christum selbs da durch, Die hie niden auff Erden mit seinen Engeln, das ist Predigern, streittet wider den Teufel, durchs Evangelium, Denn er nennet in den grossen Fursten. DERselbige hat sich nu auffgemacht, und stehet fur die Christen, und tröstet sie, mit dem Wort der Gnaden. DENn his da her ist die grewlichst zeit gewest, als auff Erden ie gewest ist, WIE Christus diese wort auch füret, Matth. [Bl. XIII.] XXIIII. Und wo diese Tage nicht verkürzt weren und auffgehöret hetten, So were sein Mensch selig worden, auch die Edomiten, Moabiten, Ammoniten nicht. DENN es schon angefangen in Welschenlanden, zu Rom und mehr Orten. Das man Epicurisch aus dem Glauben ein gespött gemacht, und die Kinder auch nicht mehr teusset. Also were beide Tauffe, Sacrament, und Wort alles aus gewest, und sein Mensch mehr selig worden. ...

... 9: Dan[iel]. 12,1 14: Off[enbarung]. 12,7. 19: Matth[ew]. 24,21f." [Page 108; 1541 Translation; Page 109; 1545 Translation] - https://archive.org/stream/s12werkediedeuts11luth#page/108/mode/1up

https://archive.org/stream/s12werkediedeuts11luth#page/109/mode/1up

[ShinyGospelShoes]

7 minutes ago, George said:

So I didn't see you denied being taught it by the 7th day adventist church.

I didn't confirm or deny anything, as I see it irrelevant to the OP.  I did give you a definition to work with though.

[ShinyGospelShoes]

19 minutes ago, George said:

Martin Luther's Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)

1522 was still a little early Luther.  He 'grew up' since that time and wholeheartedly embraced Revelation.