Angel Michael
- Thread starter Chomsky
- Start date
Le Roy, perhaps I've completely missed the mark on you. I had gathered that you:
- Believe that Christ, prior to the Incarnation, was Michael the archangel
- Believe that Christ could have sinned & lost His salvation & had this happened would have eternally ceased to exist.
rob
Active member
Greetings Grunion, how nice of you to reply to one question of mine
Here is the question you posted (in Hebrew Interlinear)
Isa 46:9 Remember <zakar> the former things <ri'shown> of old <`owlam>: for I am God <'el>, and there is none else; I am God <'elohiym>, and there is none <'ephec> like <k@mow> me,
One has to define our word meanings before we exegesis what the verse is saying:
The word <el> means "cardinal one of Strong Authority" - do you agree with this?
The word <elohiym> means "family of el's united in purpose and mission" - do you agree with this ?
Now one could say "elohiym" means "God" as you declare in English -
Nor can we assume "el" means "God" and "elohiym" means "God" and thus impose no difference between two Hebrew words??
You could do as Nehemiah Gordon does and say the majority of verses (more than 3500) over ride the minority contexts we don't like (like 6 or less) - or like me - say all contexts matter.
My two pennies "elohiym means the Father's powers flow" and they can flow in "secular families - like Moses, aaron and Miriam- or in judges like a family of strong authorities acting as a city judge, or pagan deities that function as family deities. It is clear from all contexts the term refers to a "corporate use of power flowing" hence I like the word "family power" for all contexts.
The "elohiym" cannot mean "el" we have that Hebrew word already, so has to refer to a "group of "el's" that use powers in some united fashion. Hope this makes sense.
And finally the Hebrew word "k@mow" is a "comparion" word - I like Jeff Benner for this one - the word means to compare one entity to another entity. (It does not mean "thyself" or such like)
Now the "Strong Authorities" in this chapter are clear. They are "Bel" and "Nebo" - a reference to pagan "Strong Authorities"
So the "Heavenly Strong Authority" is saying which of these pagan Strong Authorities do you compare me to?
So the Strong Authority is asking which of these pagan Strong Authorities like Bel and Nebo do you compare me to.
But what about "el" powers within the heavenly elohiym ? The chapter is not comparing heavenly el to heavenly el,
but pagan el to heavenly el. Do you understand my drift here?
So where does the Bible speak of Michael meaning "who is like God" ?
Or are we to trust the traditions of men about the name of the Hebrew word?
You study history so this should be easy for you to answer.
I can find no scholarship or Bible verse saying "michael" means "who is like God" ? so you are clutching at traditions and precepts of men, rather than sticking to the torah only?
You said : "
What is the struggle here Rob? God says that there is NONE LIKE God...
...Ellen White and the SDA Church say's there is ONE LIKE GOD.
...& it's Michael the archangel.
So from your view all references to heavenly powers only refer to cardinally one being. You cannot tolerate three beings of power that are united in purpose and mission. But isn't Catholic trinity is one being as three persons?
If the Bible wanted to teach "el" as one power in heaven, it would use "el" and "eloah" all the time, but the Bible doesn't.
You have to explain to me why "Eloah exists with Shadday in a ELohiym context" this occurs dozens of times in the book of Job our oldest Hebrew. Why do these two names appear so often?
So my reading Isiah 46:8 One "el" is asking the secular "el" who do you compare me to?
It is not saying as you imply, comparing a heavenly el to another heavenly el (assuming such els exist?)
Below other verses speak of WHO is compared to the heavenly elohiym.
Ps 71:19 Thy righteousness also, O God, is very high, who hast done great things: O God, who is like unto thee!
In this Psalm it is asking who is like "elohiym" like the heavenly elohiym is?
One has to evaluate what is the difference between elohiym and el, in this comparison?
Now you only are interested in SDA as a hobby - so I am not pushing my agenda. or any agenda.
You are welcome to chat and comment here. And I value your opinions.
But in our world we have a prophet who helps us understand Scripture easily. I have evaluated her word meanings using Jeff Benner Ancient Hebrew word meanings, and after 30 words I studied in Hebrew, rare words like "cela" I conclude EGW messages agree with Ancient Hebrew word meanings 100% of the time. See https://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1061.htm
So in your response, somethings I do not understand
(1) who is like God - where does the Bible say that about Michael, in a Bible verse?
(2) Isaiah 46:8 is comparing the pagan el, to the heavenly el, so you context is way off track?
Shalom my friend.
Here is the question you posted (in Hebrew Interlinear)
Isa 46:9 Remember <zakar> the former things <ri'shown> of old <`owlam>: for I am God <'el>, and there is none else; I am God <'elohiym>, and there is none <'ephec> like <k@mow> me,
One has to define our word meanings before we exegesis what the verse is saying:
The word <el> means "cardinal one of Strong Authority" - do you agree with this?
The word <elohiym> means "family of el's united in purpose and mission" - do you agree with this ?
Now one could say "elohiym" means "God" as you declare in English -
Nor can we assume "el" means "God" and "elohiym" means "God" and thus impose no difference between two Hebrew words??
You could do as Nehemiah Gordon does and say the majority of verses (more than 3500) over ride the minority contexts we don't like (like 6 or less) - or like me - say all contexts matter.
My two pennies "elohiym means the Father's powers flow" and they can flow in "secular families - like Moses, aaron and Miriam- or in judges like a family of strong authorities acting as a city judge, or pagan deities that function as family deities. It is clear from all contexts the term refers to a "corporate use of power flowing" hence I like the word "family power" for all contexts.
The "elohiym" cannot mean "el" we have that Hebrew word already, so has to refer to a "group of "el's" that use powers in some united fashion. Hope this makes sense.
And finally the Hebrew word "k@mow" is a "comparion" word - I like Jeff Benner for this one - the word means to compare one entity to another entity. (It does not mean "thyself" or such like)
Now the "Strong Authorities" in this chapter are clear. They are "Bel" and "Nebo" - a reference to pagan "Strong Authorities"
So the "Heavenly Strong Authority" is saying which of these pagan Strong Authorities do you compare me to?
So the Strong Authority is asking which of these pagan Strong Authorities like Bel and Nebo do you compare me to.
But what about "el" powers within the heavenly elohiym ? The chapter is not comparing heavenly el to heavenly el,
but pagan el to heavenly el. Do you understand my drift here?
So where does the Bible speak of Michael meaning "who is like God" ?
Or are we to trust the traditions of men about the name of the Hebrew word?
You study history so this should be easy for you to answer.
I can find no scholarship or Bible verse saying "michael" means "who is like God" ? so you are clutching at traditions and precepts of men, rather than sticking to the torah only?
You said : "
What is the struggle here Rob? God says that there is NONE LIKE God...
...Ellen White and the SDA Church say's there is ONE LIKE GOD.
...& it's Michael the archangel.
So from your view all references to heavenly powers only refer to cardinally one being. You cannot tolerate three beings of power that are united in purpose and mission. But isn't Catholic trinity is one being as three persons?
If the Bible wanted to teach "el" as one power in heaven, it would use "el" and "eloah" all the time, but the Bible doesn't.
You have to explain to me why "Eloah exists with Shadday in a ELohiym context" this occurs dozens of times in the book of Job our oldest Hebrew. Why do these two names appear so often?
So my reading Isiah 46:8 One "el" is asking the secular "el" who do you compare me to?
It is not saying as you imply, comparing a heavenly el to another heavenly el (assuming such els exist?)
Below other verses speak of WHO is compared to the heavenly elohiym.
Ps 71:19 Thy righteousness also, O God, is very high, who hast done great things: O God, who is like unto thee!
In this Psalm it is asking who is like "elohiym" like the heavenly elohiym is?
One has to evaluate what is the difference between elohiym and el, in this comparison?
Now you only are interested in SDA as a hobby - so I am not pushing my agenda. or any agenda.
You are welcome to chat and comment here. And I value your opinions.
But in our world we have a prophet who helps us understand Scripture easily. I have evaluated her word meanings using Jeff Benner Ancient Hebrew word meanings, and after 30 words I studied in Hebrew, rare words like "cela" I conclude EGW messages agree with Ancient Hebrew word meanings 100% of the time. See https://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1061.htm
So in your response, somethings I do not understand
(1) who is like God - where does the Bible say that about Michael, in a Bible verse?
(2) Isaiah 46:8 is comparing the pagan el, to the heavenly el, so you context is way off track?
Shalom my friend.
rob
Active member
I have been researching why Grunion feels about "who is like God" ?
September 29 has traditionally been celebrated as Michelmas, the feast of St. Michael the Archangel. St. Michael, along with Sts. Raphael and Gabriel, is one of only three angels named in Scripture. Each used to be commemorated on his own feast day, but in the modern calendar, the feasts of each are combined into the feast of the archangels. "Who Is Like God?" : Honoring the Archangel Michael's Humility
SO Jews and Catholics hold much to Michael as a chief angel?
But I like Jeff Benner and his approach, my tutor for Hebrew scholarship
www.ancient-hebrew.org
Hebrew Names: Michael
By Jeff A. Benner
A very common name today yet a very old Hebrew name which can be found in Numbers 13:13. The Hebrew pronunciation is me-khah-eyl (The "kh" is pronounced hard like the "ch" in the name Bach) and is composed of three parts. The first is the word mee meaning "who". The second is the khah meaning "like." The third is the word eyl literally meaning one of power or authority but commonly translated as "God". When put together these mean "Who is like God?"
This same question is asked in Psalm 113:5.
Who is like Yahweh our God, the one who dwells on high?
The name Miykha'el is a short form of the phrase above "Who is like Yahweh our God" which is miy khamokha yahweh eloheynu.
Rob: How about that "Michael is a short cut way of saying "who is like YHWH our Elohiym?"
Thank you Jeff Benner, a Hebrew scholar. No wonder I like EGW so much. And thanks Grunion for bringing this up - never had known this - and it took me many hours of reading to find out.
Shalom
September 29 has traditionally been celebrated as Michelmas, the feast of St. Michael the Archangel. St. Michael, along with Sts. Raphael and Gabriel, is one of only three angels named in Scripture. Each used to be commemorated on his own feast day, but in the modern calendar, the feasts of each are combined into the feast of the archangels. "Who Is Like God?" : Honoring the Archangel Michael's Humility
SO Jews and Catholics hold much to Michael as a chief angel?
But I like Jeff Benner and his approach, my tutor for Hebrew scholarship
Definition of Hebrew Names: Michael | AHRC
Defining Hebrew names based on the Hebrew words used within the names.
Hebrew Names: Michael
By Jeff A. Benner
A very common name today yet a very old Hebrew name which can be found in Numbers 13:13. The Hebrew pronunciation is me-khah-eyl (The "kh" is pronounced hard like the "ch" in the name Bach) and is composed of three parts. The first is the word mee meaning "who". The second is the khah meaning "like." The third is the word eyl literally meaning one of power or authority but commonly translated as "God". When put together these mean "Who is like God?"
This same question is asked in Psalm 113:5.
Who is like Yahweh our God, the one who dwells on high?
The name Miykha'el is a short form of the phrase above "Who is like Yahweh our God" which is miy khamokha yahweh eloheynu.
Rob: How about that "Michael is a short cut way of saying "who is like YHWH our Elohiym?"
Thank you Jeff Benner, a Hebrew scholar. No wonder I like EGW so much. And thanks Grunion for bringing this up - never had known this - and it took me many hours of reading to find out.
Shalom
Rob, you desperately need to work on your reading retention. Jeff Benner is agreeing with what I said, not you or Ellen White! The name Michael is a rhetorical question that asks WHO IS LIKE GOD? The only answer to that question is NO ONE IS LIKE GOD - according to God. Ellen and the SDA Church leadership disagree with God on this subject - they claim that Michael is PART OF GOD that's only LIKE GOD. But you know this.
The gift that God desires to give us goes way beyond His abundant forgiveness. It offers full restoration into the family of God, through our death and resurrection which are so freely given. Not only this, we are offered a marriage to God, where the Son’s divinity envelopes our humanity and we become One with Him. He will walk in us, both to will and do according to His good pleasure. We are saved from sin, not in sin. That is why it states in John's first letter, that we are cleansed from all sin and "walk in the light AS He is in the light". It is the outcome of the plan of redemption that divinity will live in all redeemed and unfallen beings. With His divine will moving in and through every created being it is the assurance of perfect harmony and that rebellion will never arise again. Throughout eternity, when the Father looks into our eyes He will see His Son who is the source of our eternal life. Yes, Grunion, God will live in Michael and you too if you have been made pure in heart by the Son.
rob
Active member
Greetings Gunion
Nothing wrong with my reading of Jeff Benner - the phrase in Psalms 113:5 is shorted to a single word "Michael" according to Jeff Benner.
I agree our SDA pioneers had, in the past; a fuzzy understanding of Jesus in relation to the Father.
Some of our early pioneers made errors in their human understanding of Bible things, and yet
EGW did not correct them, but rather went along the journey of learning together. That way you do not disturb different people growing together in time and as one accord - growing takes time.
Today SDA do not claim Jesus is any less deity than the Father is deity, they are both the same from deity.
In my view Jesus-YHWH and the Father-YHWH are both deity in the fullest sense of the word.
EGW writes the same view, despite dealing with earlier pioneers with fuzzy views.
So premise you claim that Jesus is partly like the Father is wrong. Just because some of our pioneers published stuff does not make their views correct.
The best Bible verse that defines the origin of Jesus is this verse:
Pr 8:22 ¶ The Father-YHWH possessed me, Jesus-YHWH; in the beginning of his way, before his works of "eternity past".
(with Hebrew intent)
The question you keep raising "who is compared to Father-YHWH"? Nothing can be compared to Father-YHWH?
Only Deity has life and the ability to create from nothing.
The passages made in Scripture compare pagan deity to heavenly deity - never once does the heavenly deity refer to any other.
You said "they claim that Michael is PART OF GOD" if you wish to push this idea, you will have to show a EGW message that was published entirely by her, not by non-inspired humans who are not prophets. Shalom
rob
Active member
The Son has Deity
EGW: "Demons acknowledge the deity of Christ and tremble before His power, while men are supplicating for mercy and groveling in abject terror.... {DD 47.2}
EGW: "If men reject the testimony of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ, it is vain to argue with them; no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. {HF 323.4}
EGW: "Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1113. {7ABC 446.2}
Shalom
EGW: "Demons acknowledge the deity of Christ and tremble before His power, while men are supplicating for mercy and groveling in abject terror.... {DD 47.2}
EGW: "If men reject the testimony of Scripture concerning the deity of Christ, it is vain to argue with them; no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. {HF 323.4}
EGW: "Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person—the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1113. {7ABC 446.2}
Shalom
rob
Active member
No , am I following your question? Mary would have asked Jesus to live in her by faith. Just as Paul says "I die daily" and thus allows Jesus to live in Paul by faith. We are all partakers of the Divine Nature of Christ by faith, for only through Jesus can fallen humans be saved.
Is this how you raised your question? Shalom
Is this how you raised your question? Shalom
Trinity Doctrine 101 says Father, Son & Holy Spirit are ONE POWER, ONE MIND. You can see that's NOT what Ellen White believed / taught.
Another way to show this beyond her direct and blunt admission about multiple "powers" is how Ellen clarified how Jesus had to literally PLEAD with the Father to get His permission to take a crack at the salvation of humanity. It took multiple times of creature christ going to to rib flesh Father until the Ultimate power agreed to let Gilligan have a shot trying to pull off salvation.
I brought this up because Grunion seemed to have left the thread and did not want to answer my question. So the quote that you used in your previous post about the son of Mary and the Son of God were blended into one being, touches upon my favorite topic; the incarnation. Plus this touches upon the topic of Michael as well.
"From eternal ages it was God’s purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph ( Michael???) to man (you and me), should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator.
This statement below also touches upon the indwelling of the Son
"Unless we do yield ourselves to the control of Christ, we shall be dominated by the wicked one. We must inevitably be under the control of one or the other of the two great powers that are contending for the supremacy of the world….If we do not co-operate with the heavenly agencies Satan will take possession of the heart, and will make it his abiding place.” DA 324
My belief is that since Mary's son was a descendent of David, 'according to the flesh' (Romans 1) he was fully human and the Son being a spirit being dwelt in Jesus to gain full control even while in the womb. Scripture speaks of:
"As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." Ecl. 11:5
To answer your comment, I believe that during the forming of the plan of redemption, God looked down through time and knew that Jesus would yield to and do all their will. He would be the divine example of what redemption should look like in every soul. That is how a human could be our savior, he would show us how it is done when the Life of God is dwelling within.
Just as I believe that God lived in Jesus He wants to live in all, if we consent. Even Michael.
You did it in post #29 where you said:
You couldn't have said it any clearer than that.
You and Rob believe that Ellen White was a prophet and that she taught that Christ was a separate power from God. This creature christ, according to Ellen White could have sinned and lost it's salvation. Ellen was specific that the divinity that creature christ possessed was ONLY because it was staying within the Father's holy law - if creature christ didn't behave like 'God' then the loaned power creature christ had would have been extracted. This is anti-Trinitarianism Le Roy.
Well Grunion, I am baffled. I cannot follow you. You quote me that I hold no view either way and then say that I just did???
If I have said or done anything that would cause you to think as you do then perhaps someone else who is reading this thread can explain to me what you see that I don't.
If I have said or done anything that would cause you to think as you do then perhaps someone else who is reading this thread can explain to me what you see that I don't.