Jesus, Michael?

[NickHassan]

Hi david,
Heb 2.9 “Him was made for a liitle time lower than the angels”
Coll 1.16
” For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or rulers or authorities””
This means he was higher than the angels and he was later raised again higher by far than them. This is not surprising as all creation came through him. He thus cannot be an angel because angels are part of the creation of God and that is said nowhere about the Son of God. He is not an angel or he would have been made lower than himself.

Separate yourself from those who would make serious and slanderous statements about Jesus based on nothing but ignorance, speculation and false logic. Show your faith is in God and not in men.

[david]

You asked if I think God is an angel because as you say: “God is a spirit.”

I kept saying that angels were spirit CREATURES (meaning created). God is not created.
I also kept saying that angels are literally “messengers.” Who has the authority to send God with a message? No one.

[david]

Quote

He thus cannot be an angel because angels are part of the creation of God and that is said nowhere about the Son of God. He is not an angel or he would have been made lower than himself.

Isn't Jesus the “firstborn of creation” and therefore a part of creation?
As for not being an angel because 'he was made lower than angels,' this doesn't really hold either.
He was a spirit creature who was made lower than spirit creatures or a King who was made lower than kings. This doesn't mean he couldn't be a spirit creature or a king, and yet then be made lower than a spirit creature or a king. It just means what it says: He was made lower than the angels, and he was, he humbled himself and was made a human. Humans are lower than angels.

[NickHassan]

Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2005,19:32)

Quote He thus cannot be an angel because angels are part of the creation of God and that is said nowhere about the Son of God. He is not an angel or he would have been made lower than himself. Isn't Jesus the “firstborn of creation” and therefore a part of creation? As for not being an angel because 'he was made lower than angels,' this doesn't really hold either. He was a spirit creature who was made lower than spirit creatures or a King who was made lower than kings.  This doesn't mean he couldn't be a spirit creature or a king, and yet then be made lower than a spirit creature or a king.  It just means what it says: He was made lower than the angels, and he was, he humbled himself and was made a human.  Humans are lower than angels.

Hi,
Jesus is the firstborn of the creation of God. No that does not say he was created. All creation came through him. He was not created through himself.
If he was lower than the angels then he was not lower than himself.If scripture was telling us he was an angel it would have said “the other angels” It does not.
He is not an angel and it insults his majesty to say so.

[david]

Are you saying Jesus wasn't created? That he is eternal?

[david]

WHO IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL?
Michael means “Who Is Like God?” The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty and destroying God’s enemies.
He is referred to as “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS)

Nick, I realize there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus. There are 5 or so points that all strongly imply it however. Below, I’ve tried to simplify what I’ve said before:

JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael.
It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.” Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority?
For example, a king is above a noble. If you have a king, someone in great power and he calls out something of importance, you wouldn’t say: ‘He called out with a nobles voice,’ unless the King was a also a noble. If the king wasn’t a noble, you would say: He called out with the voice of a king. To say he called out with a nobles voice would be to diminish him, UNLESS HE WAS BOTH A NOBLE AND A KING.
It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14)
If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

“ARCHANGEL” IS NEVER FOUND IN PLURAL IN SCRIPTURE
Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jehovah God has delegated to one, and only one, of his heavenly creatures full authority over all other angels.

WHO TAKES ACTION AGAINST THE SATAN, “RULER OF THIS WORLD”?
Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16)
Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil? (John 12:31)
Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the ‘standing up of Michael’ to act with authority with “a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.
So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.

WHO ELSE IS SPOKEN OF AS HAVING ANGELS UNDER SUBJECTION?
Aside from the Creator himself, only one faithful person is spoken of as having angels under subjection—namely, Jesus Christ. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And Peter described the resurrected Jesus by saying: “He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.”—1 Peter 3:22.

JESUS IS COMMISSIONED TO DESTROY ALL THE NATIONS AT ARMAGEDON
There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.

david.

[NickHassan]

Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2005,20:02)

Are you saying Jesus wasn't created?  That he is eternal?

hi david,
What I am saying is that scripture does not say he was created. He was begotten from God alone as an image in the beginning. So he precedes time but was preceded by the Father.
If you admit scripture does not state Jesus is an angel why do you dare to propagate such things as true?

[david]

Nick, this might be off topic, or possibly belongs elsewhere, but in the trinity section (not the posts), you have the following:
“12 He is God's firstborn.
13 Jesus is the Beginning of the Creation of God.
14 Jesus is begotten, not created.”
I was with you on the first two statements. The third one confused me. If Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God, that means he is created, a part of creation, God’s firstborn, being born in a sense, created. So I don’t understand your point number 14 here.

You say he is the “Beginning of the Creation of God,” yet “not created.” Sounds confusing.

It’s true that Jesus was begotten. (Beget: To father or cause to exist.) Jehovah both fathered (but not in the normal sense) and caused Jesus to exist. Normally, when a father begets a son, he “fathers” him, or produces him (through sexual relations). Jehovah of course did not do this. He created him. As your site says: “Jesus is the Beginning of the Creation of God.”

Col 1:15

New American Standard Bible
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Amplified Bible
[Now] He is the [a]exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation.

King James Bible
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

English Standard Version
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Contemporary English Version
Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen. He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation.

21st Century King James
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

American Standard Version
who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

Young’s Literal Translation
who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

Darby Translation
who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;

Wycliffe New Testament
Which is the image of God invisible, the first begotten of each creature.

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation.

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group.
Read the sentence above again. Read it a few times.

“The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.

What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15?

Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

[david]

Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created.
Is this what you believe Nick? I'm just not sure.

If that is so, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?

But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son.

According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.

[david]

Quote

Jesus is the firstborn of the creation of God. No that does not say he was created. All creation came through him. He was not created through himself.

Those last two sentences are of interest. “All” creation came through him you say. Therefore, you say, he is not part of creation.
Here is were reason should come in. We could just reason this out, but you would accuse me of speculation again, so I'll provide some scriptures where someone else reasoned the obvious out.
EPHESIANS 1:22
“He also subjected ALL things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,” (Compare Ps 8:6)

But how could Jesus be a creature if “in him all things were created” you ask. As we can see above, at times the Bible uses the word “all” in a way that allows for exceptions.
We read at 1 Corinthians 15:27 (CB):
“But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him [Jesus Christ],’ it is plain that he [God] is excepted who put all things under him.”

Really, it should be plain. Even though it says that in Ephesians and Psalms, it should be obvious and plain that it is with an exception, an obvious exception.

As a further illustration the Bible states that “through one man,” Adam, “death spread to ALL men.” (Rom. 5:12, CB)
Though Adam was not part of the “all men” to whom death “spread” (since previous to Adam there was no human who could have spread death to him), he was nonetheless a man.
Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God.
The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.)
My Bible translates 1 Cor 15:24, and 6:18 simply with the word “all” but it is obvious that it means “all other,” in those places, even as it means at Colossians.

[dtork]

Hi all.

I stumbled onto this website and read this entire thread.

It's hard to argue with the simplicity of the bible.  It is not a confusing document!

The 'deepest' writer of the four gospels says simply:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.  In Him was life; and the life was the light of men…”

John here is clearly speaking of Jesus Christ, and refers to Him as the Word, and as to not only being 'with God', but also to 'was God'.  He later says, “…And the Word became flesh…”  He again is clearly refering to the being/creature/whatever-you-want-to-call-it 'Jesus Christ'.

Jesus Christ has always been God.  If he were an angel, or a glorified angel, or an elevated angel, John was in error in his writing.  Whom are we to believe?  John's straightforward statement, or a protracted convolution of statements/questions/speculations?

Jesus Christ was God, was with God (now we have 2 of the 3 mentioned, and the 3rd by the end of the chapter), and came to this earth being born of a woman.

It is so simple.  I would have to say that from what I've read of this “Michael/Jesus” issue (and I read every word of it), this is clearly a confusing teaching that is not taught in the 'whole' of scriptures.

In my humble opinion, it's a cult teaching meant to lead people away from the simple truth.  It brings no glory to God, but only attempts to glorify someone's interpretation of so-called 'higher revelation'.

“And that's all I have to say about that…” – Forrest Gump  

[NickHassan]

Hi and welcome,
Jesus said the Father was the one the Jews called their God.[Jn 8.54] Do you agree with this or should he have said that their God was a trinity?
No one here disagrees Jesus had divine status. But he cannot also”be” the God that he is “with” in Jn1 surely?

[jbl]

Hello all! I am actually the originator of this topic, and would firstly like to thank you all for giving me such helpful advice. There are certainly very friendly people on this network.

I really do not accept the trinity, though as their is evidence to support it, there is much to deny it. The problem is, I understand Jesus is a spirit being, but, in what form does he possess?

Concerning the Michael/Jesus dilemma, I have wondered, though do NOT want to come off blasphemous in any way, is it possible, if Jesus is not an angel, that he is a God, aside from Jehovah God the Father. Not the One TRUE God, but a God, God's Son. I know this promotes polytheism and would make the trinity seem correct now. I am aware the bible says there is only one true God (as proven below).

John 17:3 (KJV)
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

However, the bible does refer to Satan as 'a god'.

2 Corinthians

3 And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing,
4 in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Exodus 20:3

3 You shall have no other gods before me

It's even in the ten commandments of other gods. But truely, not the One true God Almighty. These gods could easily be the works of demons. Is it unethical to propose Jesus as the Lord, Son of the living God, higher than all the angels, but a seperate God from Jehovah?

Thank you all, and I hope for a response!

God bless.

[jbl]

A quick addition, I do not mean two Gods together who are co-equal, I mean Jehovah God the Father, and his firstborn Son, Jesus Christ, a lesser God, but still very high and powerful.

[Proclaimer]

To jbl,

The fact is that there are many gods, not just 1 or 2. But there is only one true God or one God from whom all things came, including the other gods. This one God is the source of all good things. In fact the Devil, humans, angels, Jesus, and the Father are all called 'theos' and 'eloyhim'. Some are used in a positive sense like Jesus calling us gods and others negative like the Devil being the god of this age.

Theos:

Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God (theos) and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

John 20:28
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God! (theos)”

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god (theos) of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (theos)

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'

Elohim:

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth.

Psalms 82:6 (English-NIV)
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'

Psalm 97:7
All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols; worship him, all you gods (Elohim)!

The point that Christ tried to show the Jews that accused him of saying he was God, was that he was the son of God and that we are sons, and that is why he used the word theos. But like the Jews, many today also think that Jesus was claiming to be God himself, even though Jesus explained to the Jews that they got the wrong end of the stick, and that he was saying that he was the son of God.

So there are many gods. This is scriptural. Some will have you believe that there are no other gods. But the truth is that there are no other Yahwehs, or most high gods apart from the Father.

If you want to know about Jesus and who he was before he came as a man, scripture is clear that he was the Word that was with God. Even in the Book of Revelation he is still called the Word of God.

Jesus is the Word and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. It is amazing how many try and distort this truth by saying that God came in the flesh, or Jesus was an angel. But it was Jesus who came in the flesh and Jesus was the Word who became flesh.

Jesus is and was the Word of God. It's really simple and there is no reason not to believe it. Also it was Jesus who came in the flesh, to say otherwise is antichrist.

I hope this helps.

[david]

Quote

Jesus Christ has always been God. If he were an angel, or a glorified angel, or an elevated angel, John was in error in his writing.

tdork said the above words. Hello tdork. As t8 points out, there are many gods, according to the Bible. And as he points out, the angels were referred to as gods as well. So your argument that Jesus can't be called God and an angel doesn't really hold, since the angels are called gods.

[david]

Hi Nick (or t8) [I've asked this before: What does t8 stand for?]
I know some new people have just jumped into the conversation, so that will certainly pull at your attention. But I was wondering if you could clarify what I asked on page 5, at 01:08–About Jesus being the beginning of God's creation, but at the same time, not created. Take your time. I now realize you are both busy people and thank you for your time. I didn't realize t8 had other websites he takes care of.
david.
“A closed mouth gathers no foot.”

[NickHassan]

Quote (david @ Nov. 20 2005,01:05)

Nick, this might be off topic, or possibly belongs elsewhere, but in the trinity section (not the posts), you have the following: “12 He is God's firstborn. 13 Jesus is the Beginning of the Creation of God. 14 Jesus is begotten, not created.” I was with you on the first two statements.  The third one confused me.  If Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God, that means he is created, a part of creation, God’s firstborn, being born in a sense, created.  So I don’t understand your point number 14 here.   You say he is the “Beginning of the Creation of God,” yet “not created.”  Sounds confusing. It’s true that Jesus was begotten. (Beget: To father or cause to exist.)  Jehovah both fathered (but not in the normal sense) and caused Jesus to exist.  Normally, when a father begets a son, he “fathers” him, or produces him (through sexual relations).  Jehovah of course did not do this.  He created him.  As your site says: “Jesus is the Beginning of the Creation of God.” Col 1:15 New American Standard Bible He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Amplified Bible [Now] He is the [a]exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation. King James Bible Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: English Standard Version He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Contemporary English Version Christ is exactly like God, who cannot be seen.   He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation. 21st Century King James He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. American Standard Version who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; Young’s Literal Translation who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, Darby Translation who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; Wycliffe New Testament Which is the image of God invisible, the first begotten of each creature. Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. Read the sentence above again.  Read it a few times.   “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

Hi david,
It is the same problem as with Michael. You may think a scripture might suggest something but it is dangerous presumption to then teach it as truth. It goes beyond the teaching of Christ and we have been warned about those who do that in 2 John.

Scripture does not say the Word was created. It does say he is “the only begotten Son”. It does say in many ways that he is the “firstborn” including “firstborn of creation” and even”the beginning of the creation of God[Rev 3.14].

But it does not say he was created.

If you head out of town you will see a signpost that points to the next city. You could say that post was the beginning of the road to such and such and it certainly marks that beginning, but it is not even part of that road.

[david]

Quote

Scripture does not teach any divine trinity. Scripture does not teach Jesus is Michael the archangel. You rightly reject the first but you support the second? Why do you apply different standards of proof in these matters?

Hey Nick, you wrote the above in Biblical discussions in under “the Holy Spirit” heading. It came out of nowhere. I think it was meant for here.

There are five points or so that strongly imply (yes, I know, only strongly imply) that Jesus is Michael. There's really nothing that strongly implies he isn't, other than tradition and not wanting to believe because that would just be not what you want to believe.
Not so with the trinity. There are things that could be taken to imply that there is a trinity if you play and twist and ignore the vast majority of the Bible. Not so with Michael being Jesus.

[david]

Quote

Scripture does not say the Word was created. It does say he is “the only begotten Son”. It does say in many ways that he is the “firstborn” including “firstborn of creation” and even”the beginning of the creation of God[Rev 3.14]. But it does not say he was created.

Scripture does not say the Word was created.

Did you even hear what you are saying? This is turning into a philisophical trinitarian like discussion with words that don't mean what they mean.
He was the beginning of the creation of God, and the firstborn of creation, but not created.
But, by definition, isn't that EXACTLY what that means? If you are “of creation,” you are a part of it.
Now I'm having to go back with you and go over simple things. A Father is older than his son, always. Otherwise, what's the point in calling them father and son. Why not call them brothers, etc? When the Bible says that he was the “beginning of the creation of God,” that's exactly what it means.
If I say this [whatever] is the beginning of my creation, what does that mean?
If the bible over and over and over again uses the phrase: “firstborn of” and uses it in the normal way, the way any normal person would understand it, and we come to Jesus, why think it means anything other than what it says? In every other instance in the Bible where that expression is used, it meant exactly what it said: The firstborn is part of the group–hence the words 'first' and 'born.'

I really can't believe this. You say:

Quote

Scripture does not say the Word was created. Then you go on to state exactly where it does indeed say he is created.

It does say in many ways that he is the “firstborn” including “firstborn of creation” and even”the beginning of the creation of God[Rev 3.14].

Quote

Anyway, I'm a little confused over your reasoning as to why these words don't mean what they normally do.

If you head out of town you will see a signpost that points to the next city. You could say that post was the beginning of the road to such and such and it certainly marks that beginning, but it is not even part of that road.

No, most everyone I have ever heard speak English would say that the post was “AT” the beginning of the road. Or it was “on” the road, but not “of” the road. No one would point to the post and say: Look, there's the road.

Jesus is exactly what the Bible says of him: Firstborn of creation, the beginning of the creation of God.

[Author]

Posts