[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel  (Read 8808 times)

Bruno Kolberg

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #30 on: November 10, 2013, 09:13:22 AM »
I got lucky Stan. That’s a ref from a previous study. Took me a week to find it.

Gilda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2013, 02:51:29 AM »
Thanks to all of you good people for all the useful information you have provided on this subject. It's amazing sometime how much you don't know about things, until someone actually brings up a subject and you find out things that you've never even heard before. I'm just dumbfounded that in all the Bible studies I've been in, I never even knew any of this, nor that so many others held this position down through history. Thank you all for your stewardship.

George

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2013, 05:13:49 AM »
So then, why did the Church move away from this teaching? I find it hard to believe it was simply because a Catholic Pope championed it.



Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2013, 08:11:27 AM »
>>>
So then, why did the Church move away from this teaching? I find it hard to believe it was simply because a Catholic Pope championed it.
<<<

Why did the church move away from any number of once biblical positions? It's the same question for any one of them, and "usually" the same answer for all. They take their eyes off Christ and the spiritual, and they put them on themselves or the physical. Why did the church move away from modest dress to showtime at the Ritz? Again, the same answer. When authority of scripture plays second fiddle to personal opinions, modern society, a leader's views or our own personal opinions, the results are predictable. We either lead or follow the Scriptures, and the man that attempts to lead it walks with the transgressors.

Hosea 14:9
  • "Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein."

Why did the church move away from the teaching of Predestination to free will? From the teaching of Amillennialism to Premillennialism? From the teaching against women Pastors to a teaching accepting of women Pastors? From the teaching of no divorce and remarriage to divorce and remarriage for practically any reason? It is because (Like Israel before it) the church becomes superficial and neglects the ultimate authority, while becoming enamored with itself and its authority over God and His. We've gone from "interpretations belong to God," to interpretations belong to historians, world politics, theologians and authors.

And again, God's congregation moving away from Biblical teachings and from the doctrines that God instituted, to the teachings of men and their versions of His word, is not something that is new. Just read the Bible and you'll see it again and again down throughout the history of God's people. We can but give Thanks to Him that He has opened our eyes to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches.

"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Clifford Grodin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2013, 06:03:23 AM »
Thanks to all of you good people for all the useful information you have provided on this subject.

"The Angel Of his Presence..."

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. Isaiah 63:9

ZeroCool

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2017, 09:38:15 PM »
Tony, Reformer, John, Bruno, bloodstone and other teachers,
While this idea is relatively new to me, this I can understand perfectly because I already knew the word was messenger. I attended a study where they were discussing the angel of the Lord, which to my astonishment I learned was Christ. But others, and particularly people in the catholic church for instance, so deep into the angel mythology and catholic tradition, have a very hard time accepting this view. But the evidence is clearly there, so I get it.

What I don't get is why the translators most of the places translated it angel instead of the literal meaning messenger. Do you know what I mean? Why would they change that? That's my mystery.

George

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2017, 02:14:14 AM »
>>>
So then, why did the Church move away from this teaching? I find it hard to believe it was simply because a Catholic Pope championed it.
<<<

Why did the church move away from any number of once biblical positions?

It didn't, the Church holds to biblical positions. The Church will never be overcome.


Terrell Meyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2017, 07:56:33 AM »
But the evidence is clearly there, so I get it. What I don't get is why the translators most of the places translated it angel instead of the literal meaning messenger. Do you know what I mean?

Most, but not the literal translations. They are usually, but not always, the most accurate translations.

[Young's Literal Translation] (Luke 1:11)
And there appeared to him a messenger of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of the perfume,

[Young's Literal Translation] (Jude 1:9)
"yet Michael, the chief messenger, when, with the devil contending, he was disputing about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring up an evil-speaking judgment, but said, `The Lord rebuke thee!'"

[Young's Literal Translation] (Revelation 2:1)
"`To the messenger of the Ephesian assembly write: These things saith he who is holding the seven stars in his right hand, who is walking in the midst of the seven lamp-stands--the golden:"


Quote
Why would they change that? That's my mystery.

It's not a mystery, it's part of our human nature. Sometimes people think too much and let their personal opinions decide their translations, rather than the actual words. If the actual word in Greek and Hebrew means messenger, and it perfectly fits the context, it should be translated messenger. They changed the Hebrew to angel because of cultural bias and personal belief. Not because it merited changing.






Kenneth White

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinking Christians, Intelligent Theology
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2017, 07:49:46 PM »
It didn't, the Church holds to biblical positions.

Revelation 3:1
"And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead".

According to God, the church doesn't always hold to biblical positions.


Quote
The Church will never be overcome.

As long as there are forgetful Christians who think recklessly as you do, it is a assured that it will be. The idea that the church can't be overcome is from a misunderstanding of the visible church, vs the indivisible church.

Revelation 13:7
"And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations".

Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

Big Ben

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
  • Gender: Male
  • Always Running The race
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2017, 08:47:23 AM »
In 99 out of 100 cases, you will never be able to have an intelligent dialogue with a Premillennnial proponent without it deteriorating into charges and accusations, because you are of two different belief systems. Even professional debates between learned theologians (the few that I have known of) have deteriorated and usually ended badly.

I kinda agree with this, because Dispensationalists  are so far apart from the mainstream theology method of interpretation that it's like speaking Russian to a person from Italy. You're just speaking two entirely different languages and will never understand one another on a basic level of methodology. Two different systems means two different conclusions. No matter how many times you say Michael is not an angel, they will always return to the idea that you are calling Michael an angel or linking you with cults. Personally, I think Dispensationalism is more dangerous that Roman Catholicism because it pretends to be bible based and taking scripture literally.

When you say we will never be able to have an intelligent dialogue with a Premillennnial proponent without it deteriorating into charges and accusations, I've been there. After a certain point, they will look at you as a trouble maker trying to mislead the people, just as the religious leaders looked at Christ that way.

Dan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Dan the Man
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #40 on: July 05, 2017, 09:52:10 PM »
Yes, but there is a alternative view, and it is legitimate. The fact that most Christians don't believe that Michael is Christ proves that.

Reformer

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1560
  • Reformed and Evangelical
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2017, 12:54:12 AM »
Yes, but there is a alternative view, and it is legitimate.

There's always an alternative view, but how do you define legitimate? Do you define it by how many people hold to a particular view? Because if you do, then Roman Catholicism is a legitimate Christian doctrine. I know from your posts you don't believe that, so as we've told you before, consensus doesn't prove anything. The consensus of Israel was that Christ was not the Messiah, what did that prove? Certainly not that Christ was not the Messiah.


Quote
The fact that most Christians don't believe that Michael is Christ proves that.

That proves nothing. Most people think Christ is not the Messiah, what does that prove? Did you know that the earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with Christ? I'll bet you didn't know that. They studied scripture a little better than most theologians today and they found biblical support for that view, not only in Revelation 12 of the archangel, but also in all the attributes ascribed to Michael that should only be ascribed to Christ. For reference, check out John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048.

So the fact is, there has been a change over the years. Why?

George

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #42 on: July 12, 2017, 01:40:08 AM »
R.C. Sproul, a Reformed theologian says emphatically that Jesus was not a angel. John Macarthur another respected Reformed Theologian says Jesus is not a angel. So you are not even in line with your own brethren in this stance. You stand on an island. Not a good place to be. The Bible says Michael was a archangel. I accept that. You require scripture, here it is.

Hebrews 1:13
"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?"

I rest my case.


Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #43 on: July 12, 2017, 02:55:43 AM »
>>>
R.C. Sproul, a Reformed theologian says emphatically that Jesus was not a angel.
<<<

Good. On "that" point, we fully agree. Jesus was not an Angel.


Quote
>>>
John Macarthur another respected Reformed Theologian says Jesus is not a angel.
<<<

Also Good. On "that" point, we fully agree. Jesus was not an Angel.


Quote
>>>
So you are not even in line with your own brethren in this stance.
<<<

Not that this is a prerequisite for truth, but actually, on "this" point, we fully agree. Jesus was not an Angel. Yours is a "Straw Man" argument since I agree Christ is not an Angel..


Quote
>>>
You stand on an island. Not a good place to be.
<<<

Unless of course, ...it is. Not to equate myself with John, but on the island of Patmos, God richly blessed him with an astounding revelation of truth. I guess it was the Island where God intended him to be. Blessed be the name of the Lord, His will be done, not mine.


Quote
>>>
The Bible says Michael was a archangel. I accept that.
<<<

You are wrong. The "Bible" never said that Michael was an Angel or a Arch or Chief Angel. Man translating the Bible said that. What you may not understand is those are man's words, not something actually found in the divine and infallible Scriptures. Christ is not the Angel of the Covenant, He is the Messenger of the Covenant. Moreover, shall the fact that translators of the Bible say not only that Michael was an Angel, but translated God and Christ as Angels as well, prove God or Christ an Angel? They weren't Angels were they? No, the translations were wrong. That should be your first clue that the actual word is NOT Angel. Since we all know neither God the father, nor God the Son is a Angel. THEREFORE, the translation of the Hebrew word [mal'ak] or Greek word [aggelos] (both mean messenger) as Angel is incorrect, isn't it?  Now an angel "can be" a Messenger of God, but [mal'ak] and [aggelos] are absolutely 100% not the word Angel.

DRB
Malachi 3:1 (John 1:6-13)
Behold I send my angel [mal'ak], and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts.

YLT
Malachi 3:1 (John 1:6-13)
Lo, I am sending My messenger [mal'ak], And he hath prepared a way before Me, And suddenly come in unto his temple Doth the Lord whom ye are seeking, Even the messenger of the covenant, Whom ye are desiring, Lo, he is coming, said Jehovah of Hosts.

Why does one translation translate this word Angel and another translate it Messenger? Because the YLT translator literally rendered (transliterated) it to the actual word/meaning that was in the Scriptures, and the DRB translater is making a presumption and translated it Angel, despite both the clear meaning of the word itself, the context and content that clearly negates such a translation. In short, the Hebrew word in Old Testament Scripture is mal'ak (messenger) and decidedly not a Greek word Angel. Neither is the Greek word in the New Testament Angel, but [aggelos], also meaning messenger. So by any sound, sober, scholarly examination of the Biblical facts, Michael is never called a chief angel in the original manuscripts, but the chief Messenger.

i.e., the Bible actually says Michael was the Chief Messenger. I accept that as infallible truth. 


Quote
>>>
You require scripture, here it is.
Hebrews 1:13
"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?"
<<<

"But to which of the messengers said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?"

The answer is none, since none were the Chief Messenger except Michael, the Messenger of the Covenant who stood up for the people, who fought with the Dragon and His army (Revelation 12)  and who gave His army of messengers, His people, the victory over Him by His shed blood. You see it is we (God's Children) who are soldiers in the army of the Lord, and our weapons and shields are spiritual, not carnal. We are all more than conquerors in Christ Jesus. I know you don't require Scripture, but here it is anyway.

Revelation 12:7-11
  • "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
  • And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
  • And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
  • And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
  • And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."

Angels fighting in literal Heaven (perish the thought) are not getting the physical victory by Christ's death, the messengers of the Kingdom are getting the Spiritual victory by Christ's shed blood. The Satan and His children accused Christ (John 8:6) and argued about the body of Moses with Him, and with this victory the accuser of them is cast down. In other words, this warfare (whatever you might think it is), was won by Christ going to the cross. It's not a literal battle of literal angels in literal heaven (God Forbid) as some suppose, but is the stuff of bad movies, Televangelist and sloppy exegesis.


Quote
>>>
I rest my case.
<<<

...and the Lord judge between the witnesses.


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Trevor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus Christ Michael The Archangel
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2017, 01:42:04 AM »
R.C. Sproul, a Reformed theologian says emphatically that Jesus was not a angel. John Macarthur another respected Reformed Theologian says Jesus is not a angel. So you are not even in line with your own brethren in this stance.

That's because Jesus was not an angel. You are arguing against something that no one is teaching. It's just another red herring.

Among the great Protestant scholars who identified Michael as Christ are Theodore Beza, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, John Gill and Matthew Henry. Since you seem to put so much stock in the words of men, here is a quote by John Calvin.

“As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people.” — John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel, Vol.2 (1561), Chapter 12, Lecture Sixty Fifth
A Mind For Truth
Dr. C. Trevor Bavinck
New York, NY

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]