Angel Michael
- Thread starter Chomsky
- Start date
Jude is frequently quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses and other Adventist groups as a proof that Christ was, prior to the Incarnation, Michael the archangel.
Orthodox Christianity would disagree with that because Jude believed Jesus was "The Lord" and Jude contrasts Michael the archangel with the Lord defaulting into Jude not agreeing with Adventist groups. Additionally, the Book of Daniel identifies Michael as "ONE OF" other chief princes. This disqualifies Michael the archangel as being Christ.
The New Testament warns Christians to not accept Gospels and Christ's that are different than what the initial deposit of faith provided. Here is a Scripture that speaks of what specifically the Gospel is.
If there is anything that we as God's creation should take to the bank with 100% assurance - it's that God is not conditional and what God says simply goes.
If we can believe that it says if God says God is going to do something God is going to see it through. God is not conditional, God is God. Jesus was explicit prior to His death that the Scriptures said He had to die, had to be raised from the dead after three days and would establish an eternal kingdom. What kind of an entity would suggest that "God" made promises above God's pay-grade? Seriously, think about it.
Now, let's get serious about this Michael the archangel thing.
Imagine some Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists and Christadelphians found a time machine and programed it so that they would be transported back to the Apostolic Age and found themselves sitting in a house Church of the 1st century where a Bishop of the early Church was reading the Book of Hebrews - the Bishop reads the following:
At the point the bolded read part was read the Jehovah's Witnesses & Seventh-day Adventists start excitedly start waving their hands wildly yelling "I know, I know which angel - it's Michael the archangel" !
The Bishop and all the other attendees would have been sitting around with their mouths hanging wide open! The Jewish meaning of the name Michael is a rhetorical question, WHO IS LIKE GOD? The correct answer being NO ONE!
So, far from being a foolish topic to ponder this question is extremely important. They say snake tastes like chicken - does that equate to you that snake is close enough to chicken you can call it that? I don't think so.
I think I am beginning to grasp where you are coming from Grunion,
According to the scriptures in Daniel and Hebrews you bring forth that Michael is an angel and not Christ or the Son.
allow me to suggest something which reveals what I think you are dealing with. Could you clarify for me which sentence or sentences below might be correct in your thinking.
Michael is only a created angel (messenger).
Michael is Christ (anointed) for a special work)
The Son of God appears or takes up residence in Michael, in the same way he appears or took up residence in Jesus, but representing the head of all the angels as part of his condescension.
The Son of God appeared as a human, or in human form as a messenger Abraham.
Perhaps this will help clarify to me more of what you believe, but then I may be way off base. Let me know.
According to the scriptures in Daniel and Hebrews you bring forth that Michael is an angel and not Christ or the Son.
allow me to suggest something which reveals what I think you are dealing with. Could you clarify for me which sentence or sentences below might be correct in your thinking.
Michael is only a created angel (messenger).
Michael is Christ (anointed) for a special work)
The Son of God appears or takes up residence in Michael, in the same way he appears or took up residence in Jesus, but representing the head of all the angels as part of his condescension.
The Son of God appeared as a human, or in human form as a messenger Abraham.
Perhaps this will help clarify to me more of what you believe, but then I may be way off base. Let me know.
Not just an angel - an archangel. According to Daniel Michael was an archangel among other archangels.
Michael is a mighty angel but regardless of how mighty still only a creation ( creature ) of Almighty God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit).
Definitely not. Jude clarified that Michael was not the Lord right in the same body of Scripture.
I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying here? God became man without ceasing in any way to be God - this is the Incarnation. It's not like The Son of God was operating a man like in the movie Avatar. God added to the Divine Nature a Human Nature that was not mixed or blended. The two Natures were perfectly united. This is Trinity 101 stuff here.
Jesus was 100% man & 100% God. God became man without ceasing to be God. Understand I'm saying the same thing a Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist or Eastern Orthodox Christian would say about these things. Remember, the Sabbath Herald condemned all the aforementioned Faith Traditions for their respective articles of Faith on the Doctrine of the Trinity.
So, your first sentence would be the accurate one - Michael was / is an archangel. I wouldn't say Michael was "only a messenger", he was the Patron Angel of Israel.
I'd also remind you that the name meaning of Michael is a rhetorical question - WHO IS LIKE GOD? With the answer being NO ONE, NOTHING is Like God.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists pour a new meaning into the name and drop the question.
Here are some examples of that:
Again, if I gave you a snake tender to eat and told you it's LIKE CHICKEN, in your mind is it chicken and you wolf it down or are you going to throw up and get disgusted and tell me if something is LIKE chicken that's just saying it's NOT CHICKEN.
I do appreciate your questions and hope we can have a discussion about this topic and the Arian creature-christ doctrine.
Last edited:
Hello Grunion,
I would start by saying that my focus is and has been on the plan of redemption and the incarnation, through which God saves us from sin and redeems us to Himself.
The following is true for me, so in searching for common ground is the following true for you?
The Son of God was the active agent in creation and the title Creator is used in reference to Him. Also Lord is a title referring to Him. And if I am incorrect can you show me how?
I want to build on this understanding.
I would start by saying that my focus is and has been on the plan of redemption and the incarnation, through which God saves us from sin and redeems us to Himself.
The following is true for me, so in searching for common ground is the following true for you?
The Son of God was the active agent in creation and the title Creator is used in reference to Him. Also Lord is a title referring to Him. And if I am incorrect can you show me how?
I want to build on this understanding.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit was "the agent" in creation. God is One Being, not three Beings. Scripture says the Father & Holy Spirit also took part in the creation. To say it simply Christ is Jehovah, Almighty God in the exact same way that the Father & Holy Spirit is God.
If I'm understanding what I believe to be SDA teaching correctly Lucifer, the archangel, wanted desperately to be "LIKE GOD". The flesh Father by an act of promotion elevates Christ (aka Michael the archangel) and SDA's claim the name Michael means "one who is LIKE GOD" or "WHO IS LIKE GOD". Understand SDA's are not saying the meaning of Michael is a rhetorical question of "WHO IS LIKE GOD?" SDA's are pouring a new alien meaning into the name Michael and claiming it means that Michael wasn't God, Michael is "LIKE GOD". Sort of like in the movie "LIKE MIKE" back in the early 2000's where a little black kid gets a supernatural promotion from a lightning strike and becomes "LIKE" Michael Jordan.
A few more examples of what I'm trying to show.
Every time SDA publications like the Sabbath Herald, the Sabbath School study guides, Signs of the Times, etc. give the name meaning of Michael they drop the question mark and say Michael means "WHO IS LIKE GOD" or "ONE WHO IS LIKE GOD". This isn't a rare occurrence in SDA literature and Bible training guides like the Sabbath School training manuals - it's standard. In the above case the author of the Watchman article gloats that the book Daniel and the Revelation had excellent comments on the 11th chapter of Daniel and that the author of that book is the best up to that point on the subject - Christology and how Daniel fits into things.
Well, the book "Daniel and the Revelation" didn't mince words when it came time to decaffeinating Christ.
Both Ellen White and the General Conference of SDA's strongly endorsed the book the above quote came from. I shared this to show that the concept of Christ not being God in the sense that the flesh Father was God was a real thing in Adventism. I'm not being nit-picky here in the least. Christ was not understood to be God in the ultimate sense but LIKE GOD. Below is another example of the teaching.
In other words Christ was as much God as Christ's disciples were Christ. Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from and how this such a radical departure from Trinitarianism SDA's who hold to such things should not call themselves Trinitarian. To be fair I've talked with a few SDA's who repudiated the above in very strong language, called it heretical teaching, etc. Most historical SDA's I've found to be very firm in their Personality of God Doctrine and that Christ was a creature in the Arian creature christ sense.
Every time SDA publications like the Sabbath Herald, the Sabbath School study guides, Signs of the Times, etc. give the name meaning of Michael they drop the question mark and say Michael means "WHO IS LIKE GOD" or "ONE WHO IS LIKE GOD". This isn't a rare occurrence in SDA literature and Bible training guides like the Sabbath School training manuals - it's standard. In the above case the author of the Watchman article gloats that the book Daniel and the Revelation had excellent comments on the 11th chapter of Daniel and that the author of that book is the best up to that point on the subject - Christology and how Daniel fits into things.
Well, the book "Daniel and the Revelation" didn't mince words when it came time to decaffeinating Christ.
Both Ellen White and the General Conference of SDA's strongly endorsed the book the above quote came from. I shared this to show that the concept of Christ not being God in the sense that the flesh Father was God was a real thing in Adventism. I'm not being nit-picky here in the least. Christ was not understood to be God in the ultimate sense but LIKE GOD. Below is another example of the teaching.
In other words Christ was as much God as Christ's disciples were Christ. Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from and how this such a radical departure from Trinitarianism SDA's who hold to such things should not call themselves Trinitarian. To be fair I've talked with a few SDA's who repudiated the above in very strong language, called it heretical teaching, etc. Most historical SDA's I've found to be very firm in their Personality of God Doctrine and that Christ was a creature in the Arian creature christ sense.
So are you or have you ever been an Adventist? What do you think of Ellen's writings?
I am totally without understanding in the "flesh Father" wording. Where did that come from?
As for me the SDA church is the only church that I have belonged to. However I no longer can accept where the denomination has strayed to.
I am totally without understanding in the "flesh Father" wording. Where did that come from?
As for me the SDA church is the only church that I have belonged to. However I no longer can accept where the denomination has strayed to.
Not an Adventist nor have been one.
From what I've read from Ellen White she definitely wrote some beautiful things but unfortunately also muscled in some horrific heresy. I did watch a review of her writings from Jimmy Akin who was quite charitable to her. Here is Akin's review.
Immediately after William Miller denounced his Bible errors and urged his followers to return to their former Churches there was one group of folks left that didn't have formal Churches to return to (which were the anti-Trinitarians). This group of former "Millerites" became known as "Adventists". This group soon started to squabble over what should be believed and due to the squabbling, the group quickly "fractured" into separate anti-Trinitarian faith Traditions. The group that believed Ellen White had the charism of prophecy became known as the Seventh-day Adventists. Thus, a Jehovah's Witness is an "Adventist", they are just not a "Seventh-day" Adventist.
The Pillar Doctrine of the early SDA Church , according to Ellen White, was "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD" (POG for short). The POG Doctrine of Ellen White mandated that God the Father had "Flesh" and all the members, organs and parts of a perfect man". It was believed by the early Adventists that ancient Greek Philosophy contaminated the early Christian Church and due to this the early Church "spiritualized away" the flesh body of God and foisted a "spiritualized God" also known as "THE SUNDAY GOD" onto early Christians who formulated "The Doctrine of the Trinity" (which affirmed that God is a simple spiritual Substance without body and parts). The Adventists believed the Trinity Doctrine "Destroyed the flesh of the Father" & flesh Father was understood to be, "THE SABBATH GOD".
The POG Doctrine can be understood by reading the Pioneers belief on this subject and the endorsements of Ellen White on those same beliefs. The Adventists believed that any denial of the Father's body and affirmation of the Nicene Creed was "Pantheism". For Seventh-day Adventist's, during Ellen White's time, the POG was God's weapon against the blasphemous Doctrine of the Trinity. If you want to see the mass of documents I've collected on this from the General Conference Archives simply pm me your email address and email it to you.
So, in answer to your question about flesh Father if you are ignorant of the teachings of SDAism prior to the 1930's you would not know about these things. While working with CCR some 30 years ago I did a deep dive on Faith Traditions other than my own, I was assigned the Mormons and Adventists. Since then it's sort of been a hobby of mine.
Are you, like Rob, an anti-Trinitarian?
I'm not going to harass you if you are - it's just helpful for me to know that going in. There are a large number of SDA's that are anti-Trinitarian and those that claim they are not are soon introduced to enough evidence for them to accept that what they thought was the Trinity was not. In any event it's a pleasure having a discussion with you.
When you say the SDA Church has strayed, what do you mean by that?
Last edited:
Hello Grunion,
I have listened to a few sermons recently about anti-Trinitarian but they didn't call it that. However, I have no thought or conviction either way. It seems of no consequence either way, from what I can tell. Am I in jeopardy if I have no conviction either way? As I have said my focus is on the plan of redemption and the incarnation.
I believe that God has given instruction and revelation on the plan of redemption in various ways since creation. Sabbath and the marriage institution were the first. They were object lessons to help us see.
As to the sabbath I have seen that Isaiah 58 opens up an understanding of redemption. The sabbath will become a delight if we do not speak our own words or seek our own pleasure.
Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Jesus testimony was that his words were not his own and the things that he did were not his own doing but everything came from the Father. He was at rest from self-will and self-determination. I see in that that the sabbath is not so much about a day as it is a symbol of redemption. If God is the activator of our thoughts words and deeds then we have ceased from our own life and let God be all and in all. Jesus life was an example of what it means to allow God to express His will through us. He was the personification of the sabbath. Redemption comes when we enter into our rest from trying to save ourselves by following Jesus example of laying down his life and letting the Son be his life.
In the marriage union I can see redemption as well. The bride stands naked and unashamed before her beloved because she knows that despite what ever imperfections she knows she has, she knows that he sees no spot in her, she is perfect in his eyes. Yet she feels a great need to have his life in her that she might bear his child.
As the soul, by divine appointment, sees its need and it stands naked and unashamed not trying to hide anything but willingly is exposed before the heavenly husband knowing He alone can do for her what she cannot do for herself. There is a longing desire to have the life of the Son supply her great need. There is a divine consummation where the Seed is brought to life in her that she may have her corrupt character replaced with His.
In the procreative act the husband provides a seed that is fully daddy. The wife provides a seed that is fully mommy. As the two seeds join the genetic material blends together into a new creature that is no longer fully mommy and fully daddy but mommy and daddy combined. The two have actually become one in that new creature.
In a spiritual sense this is how Christ is formed within. Divinity and humanity become one. He partakes of our human nature and we become partakers of the divine nature. This is His saving work to create in us the character of the Son.
I have listened to a few sermons recently about anti-Trinitarian but they didn't call it that. However, I have no thought or conviction either way. It seems of no consequence either way, from what I can tell. Am I in jeopardy if I have no conviction either way? As I have said my focus is on the plan of redemption and the incarnation.
I believe that God has given instruction and revelation on the plan of redemption in various ways since creation. Sabbath and the marriage institution were the first. They were object lessons to help us see.
As to the sabbath I have seen that Isaiah 58 opens up an understanding of redemption. The sabbath will become a delight if we do not speak our own words or seek our own pleasure.
Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Jesus testimony was that his words were not his own and the things that he did were not his own doing but everything came from the Father. He was at rest from self-will and self-determination. I see in that that the sabbath is not so much about a day as it is a symbol of redemption. If God is the activator of our thoughts words and deeds then we have ceased from our own life and let God be all and in all. Jesus life was an example of what it means to allow God to express His will through us. He was the personification of the sabbath. Redemption comes when we enter into our rest from trying to save ourselves by following Jesus example of laying down his life and letting the Son be his life.
In the marriage union I can see redemption as well. The bride stands naked and unashamed before her beloved because she knows that despite what ever imperfections she knows she has, she knows that he sees no spot in her, she is perfect in his eyes. Yet she feels a great need to have his life in her that she might bear his child.
As the soul, by divine appointment, sees its need and it stands naked and unashamed not trying to hide anything but willingly is exposed before the heavenly husband knowing He alone can do for her what she cannot do for herself. There is a longing desire to have the life of the Son supply her great need. There is a divine consummation where the Seed is brought to life in her that she may have her corrupt character replaced with His.
In the procreative act the husband provides a seed that is fully daddy. The wife provides a seed that is fully mommy. As the two seeds join the genetic material blends together into a new creature that is no longer fully mommy and fully daddy but mommy and daddy combined. The two have actually become one in that new creature.
In a spiritual sense this is how Christ is formed within. Divinity and humanity become one. He partakes of our human nature and we become partakers of the divine nature. This is His saving work to create in us the character of the Son.
1st Corinthians 15 is explicit as to what the correct Gospel does (it saves) and is also explicit as to what the Gospel is.
The real Gospel (the one that saves) is specific that both Christ died for our sins AND that Christ would rise again from death on the 3rd day and that both of those things were "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES". Any Gospel that deviates from those things is a false Gospel, which according to Scripture, CAN'T save anyone as it serves up a "false Christ".
This is why the Nicene Creed says what it does in the way that it does. It makes it clear that Jesus is Almighty God and that both His coming, death and Resurrection were foretold by the Prophets and that all of everything that happened was according to the Scriptures. The Nicene Creed was a systematizing of Sacred Scripture.
I find it ironic that between 1854 and approximately 1930 Adventists in the Sabbath Herald, Signs of the Times and Ellen White rebuked the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, etc. Churches for affirming the Nicene Creed and Trinity Doctrine. It's frankly stunning. Additionally all the Adventist publications I could find that addressed the meaning of Michael the archangels name claimed it meant "WHO IS LIKE GOD" - like snake tastes like Chicken.
It's difficult to take seriously a group which claims that God rose it up to bring truth to the world when it can be proven that generations of Adventists went to the grave firmly believing in what their own Church scholars admit was abject heresy. This is strange to me.
You ask an astute question if believing this or that places one in danger. It depends on how one approaches it.
If a person believes the only thing that matters is if they REALLY believe in whatever it is that they believe in than a Mormon is in as good of shape as a Muslim or a Hindu or a Christian of any Church. If that's what you believe it doesn't matter.
I doubt that this is your position based off what you said earlier about how you believe that the SDA Church has in some way went astray from where you believe it should be.
No doubt the Sabbath was the initial object lesson as you call it. The first Sabbath was to be "perpetual" & mankind was intended to live in the rest of God forever. The Jewish understanding of this was that Adam and Eve sinned on the same day they were created - they NEVER entered into God's rest. Rosh Hashana celebrates / recalls this ancient belief (that Adam and Eve sinned on the 6th day). I know Adventists teach that Adam and Eve busted sod for 6 days and rested on the Sabbath but this is a novel and alien interpretation. Genesis is clear that thorns and thistles sprang forth from the ground AFTER Adam and Eve were thrown out, not before.
The other thing most people don't realize is that the Sabbath observed by Jews today wasn't the Sabbath of Moses. In addition the tradition of starting to observe Sabbath on the evening of the 6th day was a rabbinical innovation - there isn't any command to do this in Scripture.
I have nothing against your devotion to a Gregorian Saturday, my wife and I often attend Church on Saturday. There is no issue here in my view of your devotion to Sabbath - if it helps you in your walk with God by all means double down on it.
These concepts you bring up are fine but they can't usurp what God clearly told us and what we were given to work with is that:
- God Himself would come to save us & God would not fail.
- Jesus was identified as God Almighty along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
- Michael the archangel is not Christ because Michael's name meaning is "who is like God?" - it's a rhetorical question which only has one correct answer, NO ONE!
Imagine Ellen White and the founders of the SDA Church getting into a time machine and transporting back to the days of Isaiah when Isaiah was preaching this - the Adventists would have corrected Isaiah and said hey there, STOP! Michael the archangel is LIKE GOD, what are you saying. At that point Ellen White would rebuke Isaiah for not teaching Bible truth. Le Roy, you can't convince me you don't see where there is a huge problem with this.
What you have replied with is more of a theological description of redemption, which I had read and heard for years and it did little for me. When Father comes and reveals something to me there is a deep lesson that transcends theology, it brings life. What He gives me personally touches my heart and certain scriptures come alive with new meaning.
It is like when Peter was told, "Blessed art thou Simon for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. When Father brings a personal revelation it becomes an unmovable rock upon which He builds His church.
It is like when Peter was told, "Blessed art thou Simon for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. When Father brings a personal revelation it becomes an unmovable rock upon which He builds His church.
This is from the book The Desire of Ages 161
In the cleansing of the temple, Jesus was announcing His mission as the Messiah, and entering upon His work. That temple, erected for the abode of the divine Presence, was designed to be an object lesson for Israel and for the world. From eternal ages it was God’s purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph to man, should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator.
Can you agree with this? Is it true?
In the cleansing of the temple, Jesus was announcing His mission as the Messiah, and entering upon His work. That temple, erected for the abode of the divine Presence, was designed to be an object lesson for Israel and for the world. From eternal ages it was God’s purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph to man, should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator.
Can you agree with this? Is it true?
People are at liberty to season up and shake-N-bake a god to their own taste. I would think that Scripture and the correct interpretation of it are like marker buoys in the ocean - you should stay within them.
I can appreciate that things which are against the Bible make you feel wholesome and good - I think all of us face this reality daily in our lives. We must have the strength and pray to God that we don't fabricate a false god for ourselves that go against what God has told us in His Word. Just because the false god feels soooo wholesome and gooood doesn't mean its actually good for us.
I can agree with that if what it's talking about is when Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. Even if what you quoted is 100% correct it still doesn't give you license to commit theological adultery with a false gospel and false christ.
I showed you explicit Scripture that says Michael is NOT Christ and I showed you explicit Scripture that Christ was not a destructible entity who could eternally pass out of existence if he messed up. It appears you are pointing at what very well could be a theologically correct statement from Ellen White and using that statement to justify rolling around in the hay with a false gospel and christ because they make you feel so wholesome and good. I'm not seeing how your rubric works.
Well Grunion, your reactive spirit is reveals a lot. I have made no definitive statements about Michael, or the trinity only asked questions or pointed out things that I have read. Having no idea of what I believe on these subjects you have jumped to conclusions about what I have written and thrown accusations with less than a respectful attitude. Perhaps you should go to your closet and seek God for a tender heart and ears to hear. Your gospel seems to be lacking any good news as it seems to have put a theological chip on your shoulder. There is nothing attractive in your message, just a desire to argue over who's right and who's wrong. I don't wish to feed at that tree.
rob
Active member
Perhaps Grunion you will allow me to speak and react to your discussions, now that you have allowed LeRoy to reply some. I have four questions for you:
(1) You claim "Who is like God" is a Hebrew question in grammar, but it could also be a Hebrew statement in grammar, and I could find nobody with Authority to answer the question? So much you pose on reading Ancient Hebrew grammar? When we struggle reading our Bibles so, we use our prophet who was given messages from God, to help us translate the Hebrew into English correctly. Hence EGW terms Michael as Christ, very plainly. You seem to ignore this in your research of the SDA?
(2) The same applies to your exegesis of Jude:
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
The word "YHWH" is not detailed as to WHOM its referring to.
If the devil is contending with a raised human body - we can assume from the Law of Association that the WHOM must be a Being capable of adding life to a dead body (not a powerful angel called Michael an archangel - assuming is it a mere angel - it cannot be so... ).
In my reading of Scripture there are two YHWH, Father-YHWH and Jesus-YHWH and we need to discern which is referred?
When we struggle reading our Bibles so, we use our prophet who was given messages from God, to help us translate the Hebrew into English correctly. Hence EGW terms Michael as Christ, the archangel. You seem to ignore this in your research of the SDA?
(3) You seem to use a lot of other pioneer writers, like LittleJohn I also note Uriah Smith and James White to name a few you have quoted talking to Le Roy.
Just because SDA writers get lucky enough to have their views and writings published does NOT make their views inspired or worthy of consideration by the rest of people in the SDA church.
We are not supposed to live by the traditions and precepts of men.
I rely only on EGW and Bible in Hebrew. I do not trust published writings of men - I like most of Uriah Smith but some of his stuff is wrong.
And if you read all of James White writings on Personality of God you would have noticed while the YHWH is given to Moses a form, he makes the him God is a spirit being, who has shape.
Your pushing of the term "flesh Father" or something like that I cannot find verified or spoken about by EGW, so your statements are very misleading and therefore wrong? You need to publish a verified EGW message for us to accept your views.
And finally (4)
I came here asking specific questions about the Trinity and of the two Adventists who have responded to me one said they were anti-Trinitarian and you said you had not made up your mind about the subject? Did I misunderstand you?
I gave you specific questions about Catholic trinity that relates to both SDA trinity and Catholic trinity, so I can fathom what on earth is trinity. Like Le Roy I have no clue because few people are willing to discuss this.
Catholic view has changed from starfish model to a three persons in one model, but Rv Aylar in his video speaks I feel fuzzy about the HS. Yet I get no comment from you?
Rob rephases Rv Aylar words: "If the Father thinks and the Son completes the thought as a love response and this is projected or carried forth by the HS" - I do not see the HS as a third person , but merely the expression of the Father and the Son.
And the Catholic see the HS as a "he" the same as the SDA trinity people do, and I would like to know why? and where is your Scripture for this idea?
Since you are a scholar of research perhaps you could answer how you see the Hebrew words in Job and oldest scroll we have - why is Eloah and Shadday there among Elohiym and what do these two terms mean?
I see the two terms as two heavenly parents, hence where my view of ELohiym comes from, not something the average SDA knows - not even anti-trinitarians I suspect - It is difficult to find scholarship on this.
So if you are willing to discuss trinity - I have a need to explore your view as it helps me to view my own view - because my view is not founded upon SDA research and traditions as you claim - but wholly upon Bible Hebrew words found in Job, the oldest Hebrew scroll we have.
In you research, I doubt you come across SDA who read and study paleo Hebrew as I do - hence I can add something to the SDA view that is NOT found by reading historical SDA research, as you have done. Shalom
(1) You claim "Who is like God" is a Hebrew question in grammar, but it could also be a Hebrew statement in grammar, and I could find nobody with Authority to answer the question? So much you pose on reading Ancient Hebrew grammar? When we struggle reading our Bibles so, we use our prophet who was given messages from God, to help us translate the Hebrew into English correctly. Hence EGW terms Michael as Christ, very plainly. You seem to ignore this in your research of the SDA?
(2) The same applies to your exegesis of Jude:
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
The word "YHWH" is not detailed as to WHOM its referring to.
If the devil is contending with a raised human body - we can assume from the Law of Association that the WHOM must be a Being capable of adding life to a dead body (not a powerful angel called Michael an archangel - assuming is it a mere angel - it cannot be so... ).
In my reading of Scripture there are two YHWH, Father-YHWH and Jesus-YHWH and we need to discern which is referred?
When we struggle reading our Bibles so, we use our prophet who was given messages from God, to help us translate the Hebrew into English correctly. Hence EGW terms Michael as Christ, the archangel. You seem to ignore this in your research of the SDA?
(3) You seem to use a lot of other pioneer writers, like LittleJohn I also note Uriah Smith and James White to name a few you have quoted talking to Le Roy.
Just because SDA writers get lucky enough to have their views and writings published does NOT make their views inspired or worthy of consideration by the rest of people in the SDA church.
We are not supposed to live by the traditions and precepts of men.
I rely only on EGW and Bible in Hebrew. I do not trust published writings of men - I like most of Uriah Smith but some of his stuff is wrong.
And if you read all of James White writings on Personality of God you would have noticed while the YHWH is given to Moses a form, he makes the him God is a spirit being, who has shape.
Your pushing of the term "flesh Father" or something like that I cannot find verified or spoken about by EGW, so your statements are very misleading and therefore wrong? You need to publish a verified EGW message for us to accept your views.
And finally (4)
I came here asking specific questions about the Trinity and of the two Adventists who have responded to me one said they were anti-Trinitarian and you said you had not made up your mind about the subject? Did I misunderstand you?
I gave you specific questions about Catholic trinity that relates to both SDA trinity and Catholic trinity, so I can fathom what on earth is trinity. Like Le Roy I have no clue because few people are willing to discuss this.
Catholic view has changed from starfish model to a three persons in one model, but Rv Aylar in his video speaks I feel fuzzy about the HS. Yet I get no comment from you?
Rob rephases Rv Aylar words: "If the Father thinks and the Son completes the thought as a love response and this is projected or carried forth by the HS" - I do not see the HS as a third person , but merely the expression of the Father and the Son.
And the Catholic see the HS as a "he" the same as the SDA trinity people do, and I would like to know why? and where is your Scripture for this idea?
Since you are a scholar of research perhaps you could answer how you see the Hebrew words in Job and oldest scroll we have - why is Eloah and Shadday there among Elohiym and what do these two terms mean?
I see the two terms as two heavenly parents, hence where my view of ELohiym comes from, not something the average SDA knows - not even anti-trinitarians I suspect - It is difficult to find scholarship on this.
So if you are willing to discuss trinity - I have a need to explore your view as it helps me to view my own view - because my view is not founded upon SDA research and traditions as you claim - but wholly upon Bible Hebrew words found in Job, the oldest Hebrew scroll we have.
In you research, I doubt you come across SDA who read and study paleo Hebrew as I do - hence I can add something to the SDA view that is NOT found by reading historical SDA research, as you have done. Shalom
Last edited:
Rob, you know your prophet contradicts the Bible in this area because I've already shown what you Isaiah 46 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.
I've also shown where Jude differentiated Michael the archangel with "THE LORD"...
...Which defaults into Michael NOT being the Lord.
But, so that Ellen White and the Sabbath Hearld can be true you make God out to be a liar???
This isn't about ancient Hebrew grammar as much as it's about your feverish zeal to posit that Michael the archangel is "LIKE GOD" when the Bible in the clearest language says NO ONE IS LIKE GOD.
Survey says!
Grunion wrote, "People are at liberty to season up and shake-N-bake a god to their own taste. I would think that Scripture and the correct interpretation of it are like marker buoys in the ocean - you should stay within them."
LeRoy Reply, This is a strange reply to what I wrote, who is this, "shake-N-bake god" and what buoys am I straying away from?
Grunion wrote, "I can agree with that if what it's talking about is when Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. Even if what you quoted is 100% correct it still doesn't give you license to commit theological adultery with a false gospel and false christ.
LeRoy Replied, Another strange reply. What are you suggesting? what is this adultery that I am committing? And who is this false Christ?
Grunion wrote, "Did I misunderstand you?"
LeRoy Replies, No, you did not misunderstand me, I could not defend either belief, one way or the other. That can be cleared up in eternity. I don't see that my salvation can be disqualified by my ignorance or my lack of interest on either teaching.
Do you think I am in trouble?
My Father looks at the heart not beliefs that are held in ignorance. I believe that there will be those in heaven who have never heard the name of Jesus but they followed His voice within.
Grunion wrote, "I can agree with that if what it's talking about is when Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem...."
Leroy replies, What I have shared from Ellen White was to turn this discussion in a positive direction by enlisting your agreement on what we can discover is a commonly share belief rather than focusing on what brings about division of who is right and who is wrong. We could therefore build on that to greater agreement and understanding and I think that more light might be shown on these subjects.
So, I would ask, do you believe that all created beings are temples with the capacity for the indwelling of God's Son?
https://adventist.forum/posts/2132/vote?type=up
LeRoy Reply, This is a strange reply to what I wrote, who is this, "shake-N-bake god" and what buoys am I straying away from?
Grunion wrote, "I can agree with that if what it's talking about is when Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. Even if what you quoted is 100% correct it still doesn't give you license to commit theological adultery with a false gospel and false christ.
LeRoy Replied, Another strange reply. What are you suggesting? what is this adultery that I am committing? And who is this false Christ?
Grunion wrote, "Did I misunderstand you?"
LeRoy Replies, No, you did not misunderstand me, I could not defend either belief, one way or the other. That can be cleared up in eternity. I don't see that my salvation can be disqualified by my ignorance or my lack of interest on either teaching.
Do you think I am in trouble?
My Father looks at the heart not beliefs that are held in ignorance. I believe that there will be those in heaven who have never heard the name of Jesus but they followed His voice within.
Grunion wrote, "I can agree with that if what it's talking about is when Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem...."
Leroy replies, What I have shared from Ellen White was to turn this discussion in a positive direction by enlisting your agreement on what we can discover is a commonly share belief rather than focusing on what brings about division of who is right and who is wrong. We could therefore build on that to greater agreement and understanding and I think that more light might be shown on these subjects.
So, I would ask, do you believe that all created beings are temples with the capacity for the indwelling of God's Son?
https://adventist.forum/posts/2132/vote?type=up
A shake-N-bake god would be a different God than what's identified in Scripture. A shake-N-bake God would be a God that does have another thing that's LIKE HIM. Like Michael the archangel - who Adventists (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and SDA's) say is "LIKE GOD". Of course this is 100% contrary to what Isaiah 46 says but who's keeping track of silly stuff like that, right?
According to the Bible here,
That's pretty direct Le Roy, it is saying that one has to have the real Gospel because the false gospels and those who promulgate them are "accursed".
Fortunately, we don't have to wonder what the Gospel is as Scripture tells us this in the plainest and simplest of language. Please, read 1 Corinthians 15 and admit that the Gospel is that God Himself was promised to come to us and save us from our sins AND that there was no other outcome possible - this is the Gospel and the whole of the New Testament Scriptures are the reasons why you should believe that Jesus was God Himself in the Flesh.
I'm pretty sure that Ellen White said MANY things I would agree with and find no fault in. That's not what we're talking about here. This is about questions folks have as to why Seventh-day Adventists make claims that fly in the face of Scripture - namely that God Himself said that NO ONE IS LIKE HIM but Ellen White along with the totality of SDA publications claim that Michael was "like God". To add injury to insult Ellen added that God might not have saved us Afterall had the one who was not God but like God failed to behave himself properly. This is incredibly important stuff.
You have not given any evidence that I fit in to this reply.
Again, you have not given any evidence that I personally am off base. it is like when a politician is asked a specific question and their answer actually avoids the question that is asked.
How does any of this relate to me?