Jump to content
IGNORED

Who Is The Archangel Michael ?


Recommended Posts

  • Steward

  • Group:  Steward
  • Followers:  110
  • Topic Count:  10,467
  • Topics Per Day:  1.25
  • Content Count:  27,826
  • Content Per Day:  3.32
  • Reputation:   15,600
  • Days Won:  131
  • Joined:  06/30/2001
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/21/1971

2 minutes ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

I am glad that you agree about the OT appearances of the Son, being "the Angel of the LORD".

It's actually ANGEL-LORD -- in Hebrew there is no "of the" as I said in one of the devotions.

Quote

Biblical Hebrew uses a grammatical form called "s'michut". This form joins two words together to form a single word form. We have this in English: for example, a door and a knob are two nouns, which are used to form the word "doorknob", a compound noun. This form of joining nouns is found in Judges 6:12. The expression, "Angel of the Lord" is rendered, "angel-YHVH"; (Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay); in modern English -- "angel-Yehovah". Then, suddenly, the narrative changes from "angel-Yehovah" to simply, "Yehovah". 

In each theophanical instance in the Old Testament, it is shortly changed thereafter to LORD or Yud Hay Vav Hay ... so that you can clearly see the connection to the MESSENGER-LORD to the LORD.

Your brother in the Lord with much agape love,

George

  • Praise God! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seventh Day Adventist
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  369
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/10/2018
  • Status:  Offline

10 minutes ago, George said:

Heb 1:1  God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, 
Heb 1:2  hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; 

Through Jesus all the WORLDS were created ... 

Not in question.  Admitted, granted, already.  Yet even this proves Jesus is the Archangel of the Father, for He speaks what the will of the Father is, in Creation, as elsewhere.

11 minutes ago, George said:

Heb 1:3  who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 
Heb 1:4  having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. 

Already addressed.  Context is speaking of the 'created' angelic hosts (His "fellows", in office of ministering and messenger), not the uncreated Angel of the LORD (the Son), which is addressed as the Highest Messenger of the Father in vs 1-3 of Hebrews.

13 minutes ago, George said:

The Son is God ... not an ANGEL.

Heb 1:9  Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 
Heb 1:10  And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands: 
Heb 1:11  They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 
Heb 1:12  And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail. 
Heb 1:13  But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?

You said the Son was so "Angel" yourself:

"... The announcement is given by one who is called "malach-YHVH", literally "Angel (of) YHVH. This messenger, in two separate appearances, reveals God's commandments concerning the boy to be born. At the angel's behest, the couple offers a sacrifice to YHVH, then they ask to be told his name.

What happens next opens the eyes of the woman's husband, Manoah. The angel asks why do they desire his name for it is, "פלאי", a Hebrew word translated variously as, "miraculous", "wonderous", "supremely wonderful", "secret", "beyond understanding", and a word seeming to be used as both an adjective and a noun. But then, as the flame of their sacrifice blazes up from the altar toward heaven, this angel of YHVH ascends in the flame! At this, Manoah exclaims to his wife, "We are doomed to die! We have seen God!" From this, we conclude that the Image of God, the pre-incarnate Yeshua has once again appeared to His beloved servants for deliverance at a critical moment in the history of His people Israel.  ..." - https://www.worthydevotions.com/christian-devotional/its-all-in-his-wonderful-timing

.Wasn't that what you said?  Isn't that your link and your own study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steward

  • Group:  Steward
  • Followers:  110
  • Topic Count:  10,467
  • Topics Per Day:  1.25
  • Content Count:  27,826
  • Content Per Day:  3.32
  • Reputation:   15,600
  • Days Won:  131
  • Joined:  06/30/2001
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/21/1971

And this is connected to Michael ... how?  :)

The theophanies I pointed out ... within a few verses changes from Angel-LORD -- to simply LORD ... 

But these do not in any way say that Michael is ... Jesus.  This is the error we're addressing.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steward

  • Group:  Steward
  • Followers:  110
  • Topic Count:  10,467
  • Topics Per Day:  1.25
  • Content Count:  27,826
  • Content Per Day:  3.32
  • Reputation:   15,600
  • Days Won:  131
  • Joined:  06/30/2001
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/21/1971

After reading this entire thread finally ... the problem in your reasoning is that @ShinyGospelShoes believes every reference of Melech -- or Angel is referring to an ANGEL.   This is not necessarily the case.  Melech can be translated Messenger and oftentimes means angel, but they are not ALWAYS in connection with angel, nor is every instance "angel of the Lord" a theophany of YHVH.  The passages must be read in the context it was written, otherwise you can come up with some wild conclusions.

For example, in 1 Samuel 25:14 --

1Sa 25:14  And one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal's wife, saying, Behold! David sent messengers out of the wilderness to greet our master, and he screamed at them.

וְלַאֲבִיגַיִל אֵשֶׁת נָבָל, הִגִּיד נַעַר-אֶחָד מֵהַנְּעָרִים לֵאמֹר:  הִנֵּה שָׁלַח דָּוִד מַלְאָכִים מֵהַמִּדְבָּר לְבָרֵךְ אֶת-אֲדֹנֵינוּ, וַיָּעַט בָּהֶם.

Did David send "angels"?   In this case, it's simple messengers ... as the translators translated.

We see this same thing again in 2 Samuel 2:5, 2 Samuel 3:12, 2 Samuel 3:14, 2 Samuel 3:26, etc.  It's used in many times in the Old Testament in this way.

If you really start this type of theology ... then you could start saying that David is an angel.

2 Samuel 19:27  And he spoke slander against your servant to my lord the king. But my lord the king is as an angel of God. And do what is good in your eyes.

Then if you really want to complicate things ... you could say that Jezebel sent angels.

1 Kings 19:2  And Jezebel sent a messenger (melech) to Elijah saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I do not make your life like the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time.

So it's obvious that not every instance of Melech, necessarily means a HEAVENLY ANGEL and in some cases it's translated as messenger, and sometimes even ambassador.

For example, someone said on the forums that John the Baptist was an angel.  Why?  

Because of the Malachi passage --

Mat 11:10  This is he of whom it is written, “‘Behold, I send my messenger (angel) before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ 
Mat 11:11  Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 

So if you start misappropriating terms out of context, you can come up with many conclusions -- that simply are out of context.  This is one of those times,

God bless,

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  9,609
  • Content Per Day:  3.90
  • Reputation:   7,810
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

Now, Jesus cites the scripture [OT] itself, specifically Psalms 82:1,6, in its context [see also that the priests and rulers of the people are called by God, "gods" [Exodus 4:16, 7:1, 22:28; Psalms 138:1; Daniel 8:11,25, 11:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:3]], which in context, meant "children of the Most High" [Psalms 82:6], all "brethren" [Matthew 23:8; Hebrews 2:11], equally Kings and Priests, under God:

Totally wrong. Read the Hebrew. Elohim. Sons of God. The council of God. His Holy Realm.

It is talking about the Holy Ones nothing to do with human priests. It is about His High Heavenly Council. Nearly ALL commentaries are incorrect on this. Cannot be Israelis as before Babel, there was no Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  9,609
  • Content Per Day:  3.90
  • Reputation:   7,810
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, ShinyGospelShoes said:

You have a misunderstanding of the word "spirit" which may be demonstrated in thorough detail upon request.

Sorry. But you have it all incorrect.

Side note, none of these Job texts, in regards the “sons of God”, are dealing with the Genesis 6-9 account and are not referring to created heavenly beings.

Again, totally incorrect.

Sons of God ALWAYS refers to Heavenly Council member. Always. There is a vast Cosmic Geography of the Lord High God and it is mentioned many many times in scriptures. It is a Heavenly Divine Council and Psalm 82, Deut 32, Jeremiah 1 and other places speak of the 'Second Yahweh' and in Samuel, the Word actually stood by him. In Jeremiah 1 the Word touched his lips. There is much in the unseen realm that commentators are afraid of and have downplayed. Israelis know all about this and Peter and Jude both quote from Enoch and other sources of inter-testament literature.

Maybe your ideas are fresh off the dogmas and doctrines of the cessationist press...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  9,609
  • Content Per Day:  3.90
  • Reputation:   7,810
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Ontologically 'angel' is not a thing but a description of 'work'. = Messenger. 

It would be so much easier if we substituted SPIRIT for the word 'angel'. Then it may not be so cumbersome. Angel is just a description of purpose or job.

Yeshua may have been a messenger just like anyone - even Annanias to Saul. But it is NOT ontological.

Yeshua/Jesus is THE UNIQUE ONE, the ONLY ONE - Aramaic to Greek Monogenes. He is Ontologically The ONE who stand by Yahweh forever and always has done. Referred to as His co-equal, and for the Israelis (since they understand this) Yahweh's Unique and Only Son.
As Yeshua/Jesus said: "I and the Father are ONE, if you have seen Me you have seen the Father".

Also, "Before Abram, I AM.."

The Messenger of Yahweh often suddenly turns into the second Yahweh. The Word.

Hebrew scholars talk a great deal about this, because in Hebrew or Aramaic there is quite a distinction between 'messenger' and Ya (the Lord). Look at Jeremiah 1 where God is talking to him then suddenly reaches out a hand to touch his lips. Yes a physical embodiment of The Word. Same with Samuel. He is there, standing by Samuel, talking to Him.

The burning bush. Two Yahwehs. Gideon, two Yahwehs. Many other instances. One like the son of man - and in Daniel, 'a human'.

Edited by Justin Adams
spellin of course...
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seventh Day Adventist
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  369
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/10/2018
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, George said:

within a few verses changes from Angel-LORD -- to simply LORD ... 

Not in dispute.  Accepted, agreed.

The point was you stated, "The Son is God ... not an ANGEL.", and then attempted to cite Hebrews 1:9-13, etc., in an effort to say that "all the angels of God worship him (the Son)" (vs 6), and therefore Jesus could not be Michael, since this is the archangel, of which you said is created (without evidence of in the thread post).

Then in your very own article and study, you stated: "... the pre-incarnate Yeshua  ..." was indeed, "... "malach-YHVH", literally "Angel (of) YHVH. This messenger  ..." and in several places stated that the Son was " angel".

I stated the same thing on several occasions.  That the Son in the OT was in many instances identified as "the Angel of the LORD" (being the Messenger of the Father).

I did not anywhere say that from that it automatically proved Michael to be Jesus.

It is only a step in the process.

What I stated, is that Hebrews 1 cannot help you or anyone say that the Son is not an Angel, simply by citing Hebrews 1:9-13, etc., since it is only speaking about the 'created' angels there, and not about the uncreated Angel - the Son.  So when the text states, "... let all the angels of God worship him (the Son), it refers to every 'created' angel, and is exclusive of the uncreated Angel.

Now the difference between us, at present, is that you see Michael as created (though I do not have any evidence from you from scripture to that effect, you merely assumed it into your argument), and that I see Michael as the uncreated Son, as demonstrated with numerous evidences in thread, in link and in historical conclusion as from the Reformation, etc.

Edited by ShinyGospelShoes
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seventh Day Adventist
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  369
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/10/2018
  • Status:  Offline

25 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Angel is just a description of purpose or job.

Yes, the word (mal'ak, aggelos, angel) only indicates 'office' or 'function', never 'nature'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seventh Day Adventist
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  15
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  369
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/10/2018
  • Status:  Offline

26 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Yes and physical embodiment of The Word. Same with Samuel. He is there, standing by Samuel, talking to Him.

Yes, God has form, likeness, shape (physically) etc:

The Father is not a perfume, not an aethereal essence pervading the universe, and the Son is in His express image.
Mat_6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Luk_11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

He, the Father, is a "Person", even His person (Job 13:8; Hebrews 1:3), of which Jesus (the Son) is the "express image" of.
 
As for the rest, see "His person" (Job 13:8); "form of God" (Philippians 2:6), "shape" (John 5:37), "image" (Genesis 1:26,27; Hebrews 1:3), "likeness" (Genesis 1:26,27), "being" (Acts 17:28), has a very real movable "Throne" on which He sits (Daniel 7:9-10; Revelation 4-5, &c), has "the hair of his head like the pure wool" (Daniel 7:9), "whose garment was white as snow" (Daniel 7:9), has a "right hand" (Revelation 5:1; Acts 7:55-56), able to be looked upon, "to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone" (Revelation 4:2), having His own "nature" (Galatians 4:8).
 
See also "back parts" (Exodus 33:23), and even a "divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), see also "under his feet" (Exodus 24:20).
 
The angels are also called 'spirits' and "persons" ("fellows"; Hebrews 1:9), "young man" (Mark 16:5; Daniel 9:21; &c), and yet have real celestial (Heavenly) "bodies" with unfallen angelic "flesh" (1 Corinthians 15:35-58; Jude 1:7, Genesis 17-19, &c) an unfallen heavenly "nature" (Hebrews 2:16), where as we have bodies terrestrial (dust).
 
The Son is also a "person" (Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 2:10; Matthew 27:24; Deuteronomy 27:25; &c).
 
So is the Holy Ghost (John 14:16; &c), though His nature is a mystery and the scripture does not explain it.
 
Mankind are also called 'spirits' (1 Peter 3:19; Hebrews 12:23) and yet are real tangible beings, with bodies (made of dust).
 
Philippians 2:6; Daniel 3:25; Genesis 18:4, 19:2; Exodus 24:10-11; Psalms 18:9; John 5:37; Exodus 33:23,20,22; Daniel 7:9-10,13; Ezekiel 1:1,8,26-28; Acts 7:55-56; Psalms 24:1-10; John 20:17; 1 Peter 3:22; Matthew 18:10; Revelation 1:13-20, 2:1, 4:1-11, 5:1-14; Hebrews 1:13; Colossians 1:3-6; Numbers 12:8; Isaiah 45:23, 48:3; Revelation 3:16; Psalms 89:34; Psalms 104:33, 146:2; Acts 17:28; Genesis 1:26-27; Colossians 1:15; &c.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...