This is FALSE TEACHING. Here is what this guy says: "Therefore, Michael and Christ must be one and the same!"
The Creator cannot be a creature.
'The Messenger of The Covenant'
- Thread starter charity
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This is FALSE TEACHING. Here is what this guy says: "Therefore, Michael and Christ must be one and the same!"
The Creator cannot be a creature.
WalterandDebbie
Well-Known Member
- Dec 14, 2009
- 4,506
- 3,142
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
I did not actually expect a reply, I was just wondering if you had any specific reasons why you believed, there is no way that Christ could be the Arch angel Michael. This statement implies that someone must have a very strong reason for this position.
Have you ever truly investigated the subject for yourself or are you simply satisfied with what our Trinitarian friends have to say upon the subject?
As a Bible Student our position is that our Lord was/is the Arch (Chief) angel (messenger) of God, Michael. This position being simply one of many names and titles given our Lord.
I will be posting a study on the subject on my blog post shortly if you are interested.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
The study on who the Arch Angel is with scriptural evidences is well written and to the point, the only fault I could find was that the writer did not properly understand the true significance of Revelation Chapter 12, that is to say he was viewing it from the wrong perspective, from that generally viewed by the professing church and thus missed its true meaning.
Nevertheless he appears to be well studied in the scriptures.
P.S. Don't mind our friend Enoch he can't help it, he's blinded by his belief in the Trinity so much so that the plain statements of scripture are hidden from him.
No need (though I glanced at some of his ideas). The conclusion was false, therefore the premises were false. Christ is the Creator, Michael is a creature. No doubt a very high angel -- an archangel, but not God.
WalterandDebbie
Well-Known Member
- Dec 14, 2009
- 4,506
- 3,142
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I have not prayed about that article, but when I do, I will let you all know, and the writer had said himself in that article, "how can this be ?" .
Love Always, Walter
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
WalterandDebbie
Well-Known Member
- Dec 14, 2009
- 4,506
- 3,142
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
In my study, I thought that The Arch Angel is The Captain Of The Lord's Host,
Yet the Lord is identified as "the Angel of the Lord" to Moses and as "Captain of the Host of the Lord" to Joshua. It is an Angel, yet it is God! When putting all the attubutes that we have studied all together, we must conclude that the Angel of the Lord really is Michael the Archangel.
Joshua 5:13 - 6:5
But Jesus Christ is Lord: And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:11 , Hebrews 4:14 , Isaiah 7:14 , Isaiah 9:6 , 1 Timothy 3:16 , So then I said years ago, that Jesus Christ is separate from the Archangel Michael, according to these scriptures, but like I said to: Harvest 1874 in post #84, I will be in prayer about this issue for those that are interested.
Love Always, Walter and Debbie
Last edited:
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
does Anyone find it odd that the lords ministry was 3and 1/2 years, Thant He’s the messenger of the covenant of peace, and He said I have left your house desolate unto you?
But you did not include the first two pages of the document which would have also been helpful. Their omission raises doubts on the source and the validity of the document.
Shalom
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately this is the problem with most they can't judge the material upon its on merits, but rather have to judge it by its source, by who the writer might be. Its referred to as judging a book by its cover.
A truth is still a truth even if it be spoken by the Adversary himself.
The message is more important than the messenger, and so it is that it pleases the Lord to use the despised things of this world (despised by men and by the worldly church) to confound the worldly wise, they refuse to accept anything unless it comes to them by means of one of the approved sources, sources approved by orthodoxy.
A document may well argue its points to convince you of an outcome. The outcome of the article was that Jesus and Michael are one and the same entity/person. An SDA position if I am not mistaken. It lead me to question the source of the document and with the removal of the first two pages, I sensed a rat was at work. If the paper was from outside of the SDA fold, then I might have sat up and taken some notice of it, but to give out an SDA sourced document is deceitful as if it will prove beyond doubt the truth of the matter raises more questions than answers.
If SDA sourced documents are the only source for this theory, then if it is truth then why are there no other sources for document to prove the case?
Get my drift.
Shalom
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
Yes I got your drift you made your judgement on the validity of the article based upon your personal opinion of the source of the material and not upon the content itself, thus as I said, judging the book by its cover.
The truths given in the study were well researched and harmonize with the teachings of the holy scriptures with the exception of that which pertains to Revelation Chapter 12, but here we delve into prophecy and as always there are many conflicting views in this particular area especially when concerning prophecy yet fully fulfilled. The fact that you chose not to examine the material, proving all things, holding fast to that which is true does not in any way detract from the validity of the material.
Oh, and by the way both Bible Students and the JW's hold to these same truths.
I based my conclusion after reading the document, and not as you have surmised. If the tenet of the argument is discernible to all the denominational churches, then a paper or document from another source outside of the two that you have mentioned would have spoken loudly in support of the position that Michael and Jesus are one and the same.
However, the document only reinforces the SDA and bible Students position, two marginal sects that shelter under the denominational unbellra of the Church.
Shalom
PS: - for what it is worth, I would consider that the Bible Students and the SDA are not that far removed from each other.
@Harvest 1874,
@firstthings1st.
Hello there,
With respect, I do not know you, nor do I know your influences, therefore I will let the Word of God be the arbiter on all that you say, or contribute. That is the way of safety. For something to be 'counterfeit', or to deceive, it has to be so close to the truth that it becomes almost one with it. So, I will not allow man's thoughts to enter my mind without weighing it against the Scriptures, and then with 'fear and trembling' in the light of my own frailty, and pray for God's protection.
Man's reasoning's can be very persuasive, so I believe it is important to let God's Word stand, and that which God has defined by Name and Title, I allow to remain as it stands, without the reasoning of my mind upon it. Nor do I seek to join together what God has separated. Simply believe what He has said.
I commit you both, and all of us who take part in this forum to God, that His perfect will may be done in each one of us, for His Name and glory's sake: and pray that He will keep us from error, and deception.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
@firstthings1st.
Hello there,
With respect, I do not know you, nor do I know your influences, therefore I will let the Word of God be the arbiter on all that you say, or contribute. That is the way of safety. For something to be 'counterfeit', or to deceive, it has to be so close to the truth that it becomes almost one with it. So, I will not allow man's thoughts to enter my mind without weighing it against the Scriptures, and then with 'fear and trembling' in the light of my own frailty, and pray for God's protection.
Man's reasoning's can be very persuasive, so I believe it is important to let God's Word stand, and that which God has defined by Name and Title, I allow to remain as it stands, without the reasoning of my mind upon it. Nor do I seek to join together what God has separated. Simply believe what He has said.
I commit you both, and all of us who take part in this forum to God, that His perfect will may be done in each one of us, for His Name and glory's sake: and pray that He will keep us from error, and deception.
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Last edited:
So you are suggesting Christians should worship an archangel? What next?
The *Angel of the LORD* is as far removed from an archangel as the Creator is from the creature, And the Bible says about Christ "Let ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD [including Michael] worship Him".
WalterandDebbie
Well-Known Member
- Dec 14, 2009
- 4,506
- 3,142
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
WalterandDebbie
Well-Known Member
- Dec 14, 2009
- 4,506
- 3,142
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No Sir, I'm not suggesting that at all, but, All Angels of GOD are subject unto our Lord Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:22 , and, as a matter of fact, that all power was given to Christ from GOD: Matthew 28:18 , 19 Bible verses about All Authority Has Been Given To Jesus
Last edited:
Similar threads
