I have recently been involved in a discussion turned bad about a teaching of your denomination. People being accused of being devils wanting to take people down the wrong path and others being accused of being blind cultists. It was terrible. Can't we have an honest, open discussion about teachings and doctrine without getting hostile towards one another? Let me preface this by saying that I am a nondenominational Christian. I believe all denominations preach some truths. I also believe that there are falsehoods that they all teach. No denomination is perfect in my eyes. That said, I am not trying to attack your belief in this belief. I am merely trying to understand a belief that I, personally, believe to be false. (disclaimer over, lol)
We were discussing the teaching that Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I must confess that before it was brought up I hadn't heard of such a teaching. I don't believe it to be true. I believe that the scriptures quoted in defense of this belief are describing Michael as the top General in the Lords Army of which Christ is at the Command.(Just so you know where I come from on this issue) I was just wondering what the significance of this teaching is to the SDA believer? There has to be some importance or meaning placed on this belief in order for it to be taught. What significance does it have if Michael is Jesus? What consequence does it have if Michael is not Jesus? The "discussion" degraded before I could get an answer to those questions. thank you in advance.
I have recently been involved in a discussion turned bad about a teaching of your denomination. People being accused of being devils wanting to take people down the wrong path and others being accused of being blind cultists. It was terrible. Can't we have an honest, open discussion about teachings and doctrine without getting hostile towards one another? Let me preface this by saying that I am a nondenominational Christian. I believe all denominations preach some truths. I also believe that there are falsehoods that they all teach. No denomination is perfect in my eyes. That said, I am not trying to attack your belief in this belief. I am merely trying to understand a belief that I, personally, believe to be false. (disclaimer over, lol)
Hi TS101, Welcome to the SDA forums. I couldn't find where that discussion was on B'net, therefore, it must have been elsewhere. SDA's are the ones usually being accused of cultists, etc.
If there wasn't a good deal of truth in what is said, no one would fall for the lies. As 2Pet.1:10 admonishes "all should make their calling and election sure."
We were discussing the teaching that Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I must confess that before it was brought up I hadn't heard of such a teaching. I don't believe it to be true. I believe that the scriptures quoted in defense of this belief are describing Michael as the top General in the Lords Army of which Christ is at the Command.(Just so you know where I come from on this issue) I was just wondering what the significance of this teaching is to the SDA believer? There has to be some importance or meaning placed on this belief in order for it to be taught. What significance does it have if Michael is Jesus? What consequence does it have if Michael is not Jesus? The "discussion" degraded before I could get an answer to those questions. thank you in advance.
TS101, That isn't one of the 28 Fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church. Those can be reviewed at www.adventist.org .
Neither are they deemed as a necessary belief for Salvation. However, while you fail to see enough evidence in those four scriptures for that to be a fact----I do, and most SDA's do as well.to acknowledge that particular Michael to be referring to Jesus. There is a thread on this forum relating to the subject(several pages back).
Just a topic of interest. None. I hope I answered your questions. Could I be of further help with questions?
Peace, Sincerly. As long as sin is practiced, one will search for a means to validate the continuing therein. ANON
The greatest want of the world is the want of men--men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.---- ANON (Ellen G. White. 1882)
We were discussing the teaching that Michael and Jesus are one in the same. …I was just wondering what the significance of this teaching is to the SDA believer?
It has almost no significance for Adventists because there are very few references to Michael in Scripture. You really can't have a decisive doctrine without strong Scriptural references.
There has to be some importance or meaning placed on this belief in order for it to be taught.
In Ellen G. White's writings about the Bible, the church prophetess mentions that the archangel Michael is Jesus but I'm fairly confident that she ever said it was an important doctrine.
What significance does it have if Michael is Jesus? What consequence does it have if Michael is not Jesus?
If Michael is another name for Jesus, then it confirms that Christ enjoyed being identified as one of the chief princes of heaven (Daniel 10:13) and but one of several strong angels (Rev 10:1; 5:2; 18:21), just as on Earth Jesus enjoyed calling himself the son of man.
Did you know that there are conservative Bible scholars that recognize divine attributes in the strong angel of Revelation 10:1?
I believe that my viewpoint harmonies nicely with other writings by the prophetess. For example: Christ's limited omniscience is plainly evident in the writings of Ellen G. White, just as in the Bible:
"All the heavenly host were summoned to appear before the Father, to have each case determined. Satan unblushingly made known his dissatisfaction that Christ should be preferred before him. He stood up proudly and urged that he should be equal with God, and should be taken into conference with the Father and understand his purposes. God informed Satan that to his Son alone he would reveal his secret purposes, and he required all the family in heaven, even Satan, to yield him implicit, unquestioned obedience; but that he (Satan) had proved himself unworthy a place in heaven." — The Signs of the Times, January 9, 1879.
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place." Revelation 1:1.
Hi TS101, Welcome to the SDA forums. I couldn't find where that discussion was on B'net, therefore, it must have been elsewhere. SDA's are the ones usually being accused of cultists, etc.
You are correct. It was on a Facebooks group page that I started called, what else, "The Truthseekers". I mean it as a place where people could get together and talk about things without fear, but it didn't quite work out. Nobody could leave their denominational affailiations at the door and just search for pure truth. The conversation got ugly. So I booted some and some left on their own. I just want to keep searching for the truth.
If there wasn't a good deal of truth in what is said, no one would fall for the lies. As 2Pet.1:10 admonishes "all should make their calling and election sure."
However, while you fail to see enough evidence in those four scriptures for that to be a fact
It's not that I don't see enough evidence. It's that I don't see ANY evidence to support such a claim. What is being claimed is speculation and interpretation in my opinion. But I'm not here to debate that. I'm here to try to understand what it is you believe, why you believe it and what significance it has.
In Ellen G. White's writings about the Bible, the church prophetess mentions that the archangel Michael is Jesus but I'm fairly confident that she ever said it was an important doctrine.
If Michael is another name for Jesus, then it confirms that Christ enjoyed being identified as one of the chief princes of heaven (Daniel 10:13) and but one of several strong angels (Rev 10:1; 5:2; 18:21), just as on Earth Jesus enjoyed calling himself the son of man.
So it serves the purpose of bringing Jesus down from God (1 member of a triune Godhead) status to Angel (creatures created by God) status. Albeit the greatest of the angels, but nevertheless one of the several chief princes and one of several strong Angels. Am I reading that correctly?
I believe that my viewpoint harmonies nicely with other writings by the prophetess.
I personally think we should be harmonizing our viewpoints with what is written in the Bible. Personally mind you. While I think Mrs. White was a terrific author and had a great grasp on things, I don't elevate her writings to the level of God-breathed and scriptural. That's just my personal opinion. So any proof that Michael is Jesus will have to come from the Bible in order to convince me, not Mrs. White. But I'm not here to be convinced or convince you. I'm here to learn and understand.
TS101, Shubee is a former SDA who used EGW's writing correctly here in order for you the seek more information in which he uses her writings to promote his false ideas/allergations against the SDA Church. Believe what you will. Stay true to your B'net name.
Peace, Sincerly. As long as sin is practiced, one will search for a means to validate the continuing therein. ANON
The greatest want of the world is the want of men--men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.---- ANON (Ellen G. White. 1882)
Believe what you will. Stay true to your B'net name.
Well, at this point I still believe that Michael is Michael and Jesus is Jesus, and I will continue to believe it unless it can be proven to me with the Bible and not the writings of Mrs. White. Please don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoy reading Mrs. White's books. I really like her insight. I think she had a good grasp on things. I'm just not going to call her a prophet or elevate her writings to the level of scripture. In the same way that I will not elevate Billy Graham, Joel Olsteen, T.D. Jakes or Joyce Meyers. Excellent Christian writers. Very good writers, but prophets? What is your take on the whole Michael being Jesus issue?
I have recently been involved in a discussion turned bad about a teaching of your denomination. People being accused of being devils wanting to take people down the wrong path and others being accused of being blind cultists. It was terrible. Can't we have an honest, open discussion about teachings and doctrine without getting hostile towards one another? Let me preface this by saying that I am a nondenominational Christian. I believe all denominations preach some truths. I also believe that there are falsehoods that they all teach. No denomination is perfect in my eyes. That said, I am not trying to attack your belief in this belief. I am merely trying to understand a belief that I, personally, believe to be false. (disclaimer over, lol)
We were discussing the teaching that Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I must confess that before it was brought up I hadn't heard of such a teaching. I don't believe it to be true. I believe that the scriptures quoted in defense of this belief are describing Michael as the top General in the Lords Army of which Christ is at the Command.(Just so you know where I come from on this issue) I was just wondering what the significance of this teaching is to the SDA believer? There has to be some importance or meaning placed on this belief in order for it to be taught. What significance does it have if Michael is Jesus? What consequence does it have if Michael is not Jesus? The "discussion" degraded before I could get an answer to those questions. thank you in advance.
::::POOF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE:::::
Devil here.......
Im a soldier in the front lines, men might believe they need to run things from the top,being generals and all, to get things done, I run this army of demons from way way waaaaay down here.
You know how this war of ours GOOD vs Evil is going? Evil is winning so long you still hold it in your heart that this is a war.
Evil always says its war, swears up and down its good, Evil NEVER calls itself evil.
Good sees a brother or a sister who needs guidance. It doesn't condemn another as total evil. It never loses hope. It knows God is a good thing and believes it better then anyone of us believe giving million dollars would be a welcomed thing.
Anyone who can tell the difference between God and Kindness is immature of both.
Can you tell the difference between Jesus and Kindness or Michael and Kindness?
Im the Accuser, Blaming and Fault Finding those are my tools. Folks who rely on my tools show their "sincere" trust of God.
Folks should realley hand me back my tools so God can hand them better tools.
Leave the blaming and fault finding to a proffesional. }=)
Believe what you will. Stay true to your B'net name.
Well, at this point I still believe that Michael is Michael and Jesus is Jesus, and I will continue to believe it unless it can be proven to me with the Bible and not the writings of Mrs. White. Please don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoy reading Mrs. White's books. I really like her insight. I think she had a good grasp on things. I'm just not going to call her a prophet or elevate her writings to the level of scripture. In the same way that I will not elevate Billy Graham, Joel Olsteen, T.D. Jakes or Joyce Meyers. Excellent Christian writers. Very good writers, but prophets? What is your take on the whole Michael being Jesus issue?
Hi TS101, not that I'm all that pleased, but you attributed shubee's comments to me.
EGW, acknowledged and wrote that the Authority SDA'S were to Follow was the BIBLE. If any of her writings were condictory to the Holy Scriptures not to believe them. Therefore, as a SDA for 62 years now, I make the Scriptures my guide. I only use EGW's writings to show the correct messages she has given when a critic has stated contrarily.
"What is my take?" It really isn't an issue one way or the other. That is the same I have seen by the majority of SDAs. I really haven't known one who is as adamant as the one you described.
The name Michael means "one like GOD". There was several "michael" named people listed in the Scriptures(15?) We (human Beings) were made in the Image of GOD. Certainly, Jesus was sent by GOD and was GOD, therefore, like GOD.
An Angel means a messenger; and the actual being. Jesus was sent of the Father as he said.(No!, Jesus wasn't a created being; nor was HE placed on a lower status except as being born of woman placed HIM a "little lower than the Angels" in that sense.(Ps.8:5; Heb.2:7,9).
1Thess.4:16, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"
Michael is said to be an archangel. Jude 1:9, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" Which brings up the question---Only God can declare who are HIS.
Michael in Dan.12:1-2, "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt."" Who is it that calls forth HIS people from the dust of the dust of the earth? Jesus.( Nothing indicated "Michael" was an angel in these Daniel verses. Gabriel)---Yes.
Rev.12:7, "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels," Jesus who created all things in the heavens and earth would have a responsibility to bring order to the area.
Again, It is more historical than salvational, but for those verses and reasons, I tend to accept "Michael" as Jesus' heavenly name as HE has many earthly names.
Peace, Sincerly. As long as sin is practiced, one will search for a means to validate the continuing therein. ANON
The greatest want of the world is the want of men--men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.---- ANON (Ellen G. White. 1882)
