- This topic is empty.
- Posts
According to the following scripture it is impossible for Michael to be Jesus.
Revelation 12:7-11
7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels (messengers) fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels (messengers) fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven (in Genesis God calls the earth heaven) any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels (messengers) were cast out with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
So how did Michael and his angels overcome Satan?
by the Blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony
So if Michael and his messengers overcame the devil by the blood of the LAMB, how is he the Lamb?
Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?
Yes I would like to understand this confusion as to Micheal and Christ? I have heard but know of no scripture that states Micheal was Adam? Boy this gets to be a mess if Micheal is Adam and Christ is Micheal? Does this Mean Christ was father of All man-kind Literally? WOW … KAB-32
Quote (MichaelTheeArchAngel @ July 31 2008,02:43) According to the following scripture it is impossible for Michael to be Jesus. Revelation 12:7-11
7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels (messengers) fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels (messengers) fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven (in Genesis God calls the earth heaven) any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels (messengers) were cast out with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
So how did Michael and his angels overcome Satan?
by the Blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony
So if Michael and his messengers overcame the devil by the blood of the LAMB, how is he the Lamb?
Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?
Much beside the point, the Book of Enoch mentions Michael being one of the four presences — and Jesus as “the Elect one”. Very plain.It looks as if we are in agreement. Michael is not Yahshua or Adam. According to the book of Enoch, those four present are “Different from those who sleep not.” Would you say that that means that they need sleep? And if so, would that mean that they are mortal?
Quote So if Michael and his messengers overcame the devil by the blood of the LAMB, how is he the Lamb?
This question, I believe, is wrong.I don't believe the scripture says that Michael and his messengers conquered Satan.
Look at the scripture again:
“Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of OUR BRETHREN, who accused THEM before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And THEY (our brothers) overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.It was because of the word of their witnessing or testimony, and because of the blood of the lamb that they conquered him.
Jesus' brothers, the annointed, are said to conquer Satan.
1 John 2:14
14 I write YOU, fathers, because YOU have come to know him who is from [the] beginning. I write YOU, young men, because YOU are strong and the word of God remains in YOU and YOU have conquered the wicked one.Here, the same word for “conquered” I believe is used, as is used in Revelation. And how did they conquer Satan?
And in this scripture, Revelation 12, it is again Jesus brothers (his brethren) who are said to conquer:
And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.”Quote So if Michael and his messengers overcame the devil by the blood of the LAMB, how is he the Lamb? I'm still not sure how this question makes sense.
If Michael overcame the devil by the blood of the lamb, how is he the lamb?
Even though I believe you're misunderstandng this scripture, if your understanding was correct, it would only help to prove what you are trying to disprove. At least, that's how I see it.For those that asked, here are some reasons why some believe Michael was Jesus' name in heaven. (God changes names sometimes.)
WHO IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL?
The spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In the book of Daniel, Michael is battling wicked angels; in the letter of Jude, he is disputing with Satan; and in Revelation, he is waging war with the Devil and his demons. By defending Jehovah’s rulership and fighting God’s enemies, Michael lives up to the meaning of his name–“Who is Like God?”
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)
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon (Gen 49:1,2; Mat 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. 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.JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
1 THESSALONIANS 4:16
“because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
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. (The word arch angel [chief angel or chief of the angels] is never mentioned in plural in scripture.)
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.
Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ.“ARCHANGEL” IS NEVER FOUND IN PLURAL IN SCRIPTURE.
Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is only found in the singular, never 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.
(Adding to this, I would like to say that some like to use the phrase: “Archangels” or speak of them in plural. The Bible never does this. Perhaps they are taking this belief from the The book of Enoch, a non-biblical book, which while it may be useful for historical purposes, also seems to contain falsehood and is not part of the inspired Word of God.)WHO TAKES ACTION AGAINST 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.
ARMY LEADER:
The Bible states that “Michael and HIS angels battled with the dragon….and its angels.” (Rev 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Rev 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels” (2 Thess 1:7; Mat 16:27; 24:31; 1 Pet 3:22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Mat 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven–one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus–it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.JESUS IS COMMISSIONED TO DESTROY ALL THE NATIONS AT ARMAGEDDON
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.Yes, there are other angelic creatures of high rank, such as seraphs and cherubs. (Genesis 3:24; Isaiah 6:2) Yet, the Scriptures point to the resurrected Jesus Christ as the chief of all angels—Michael the archangel.
Hi david,
Yes, classic misuse of scripture, falsely patching individual verses together with logic and inference.
Thanks.Quote Hi david,
Yes, classic misuse of scripture, falsely patching individual verses together with logic and inference.
Thanks.Nick, perhaps you could explain to me why according to Mike's reasoning “it is impossible for Michael to be Jesus.”
Hi david,
We do not study scripture searching for what is possible, but rather what is clearly taught and supported by several verses. There are none that directly say what you teach, let alone any supporting verses, which puts such speculations in the same category as the trinity theory.Quote (david @ Aug. 07 2008,03:35) Quote So if Michael and his messengers overcame the devil by the blood of the LAMB, how is he the Lamb?
This question, I believe, is wrong.I don't believe the scripture says that Michael and his messengers conquered Satan.
Look at the scripture again:
“Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of OUR BRETHREN, who accused THEM before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And THEY (our brothers) overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.It was because of the word of their witnessing or testimony, and because of the blood of the lamb that they conquered him.
Jesus' brothers, the annointed, are said to conquer Satan.
1 John 2:14
14 I write YOU, fathers, because YOU have come to know him who is from [the] beginning. I write YOU, young men, because YOU are strong and the word of God remains in YOU and YOU have conquered the wicked one.Here, the same word for “conquered” I believe is used, as is used in Revelation. And how did they conquer Satan?
And in this scripture, Revelation 12, it is again Jesus brothers (his brethren) who are said to conquer:
And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.”Quote So if Michael and his messengers overcame the devil by the blood of the LAMB, how is he the Lamb? I'm still not sure how this question makes sense.
If Michael overcame the devil by the blood of the lamb, how is he the lamb?
Even though I believe you're misunderstandng this scripture, if your understanding was correct, it would only help to prove what you are trying to disprove. At least, that's how I see it.
Again, If Michael and his messengers over come Satan by the blood of the Lamb, then Michael is not the Lamb. They did not love there lives so much ever till death. And so Michael and his messengers die a mortal death. P.s. Michael is never called “Prince”, the correct translations for that word is “Leader.”Quote Again, If Michael and his messengers over come Satan by the blood of the Lamb, then Michael is not the Lamb. They did not love there lives so much ever till death. And so Michael and his messengers die a mortal death. P.s. Michael is never called “Prince”, the correct translations for that word is “Leader.” Mike, I'm not sure you read my post at all. What does the actual scrpiture say? Who was it that over came or conquered Satan?
I fail to understand much of your reasoning. For example, where does it say that Michael and his angels die a mortal death?
Quote (david @ Aug. 08 2008,11:19) Quote Again, If Michael and his messengers over come Satan by the blood of the Lamb, then Michael is not the Lamb. They did not love there lives so much ever till death. And so Michael and his messengers die a mortal death. P.s. Michael is never called “Prince”, the correct translations for that word is “Leader.” Mike, I'm not sure you read my post at all. What does the actual scrpiture say? Who was it that over came or conquered Satan?
I fail to understand much of your reasoning. For example, where does it say that Michael and his angels die a mortal death?
Rev 12:11. They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.Quote (david @ Aug. 08 2008,11:19) Quote Again, If Michael and his messengers over come Satan by the blood of the Lamb, then Michael is not the Lamb. They did not love there lives so much ever till death. And so Michael and his messengers die a mortal death. P.s. Michael is never called “Prince”, the correct translations for that word is “Leader.” Mike, I'm not sure you read my post at all. What does the actual scrpiture say? Who was it that over came or conquered Satan?
I fail to understand much of your reasoning. For example, where does it say that Michael and his angels die a mortal death?
The word “Angel” is part of the Pagan religion and not Judaism. The word “Messenger” is given the INTERPRETATION “Angel.” Another INTERPRETATION is where Michael is called “Prince.” That should have been TRANSLATED as “Leader.” Michael is “different from those that sleep not.” If anyone still does not get it, then they were not meant too.The Bible uses the terms מלאך אלהים (melakh Elohiym; messenger of God), מלאך יהוה (melakh Adonai; messenger of the Lord), בני אלוהים (b'nai Elohiym; sons of God) and הקודשים (ha-qodeshim; the holy ones) to refer to beings traditionally interpreted as angels. The word “angel” in English (from Old English and German Engel), French (from Old French angele), Spanish, and many other Romance languages are derived from the Latin angelus, itself derived from Koine Greek: άγγελος, angelos, “messenger” (pl. άγγελοι). The ultimate etymology of that word in Greek is uncertain.
The rationalist view of angels, as held by Maimonides, Gersonides, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, etc., states that God's actions are never mediated by a violation of the laws of nature. Rather, all such interactions are by way of messengers. Maimonides harshly states that the average person's understanding of the term “angel” is ignorant in the extreme.
According to Maimonides, the wise man understands that what the Bible and Talmud refer to as “angels” are actually metaphors for laws of nature, or the principles by which the universe operates.
The origin of angels in history is quite complicated to figure out, due to angels or similar spirit beings being found within many cultures around the globe.
Angels are also found within Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian and Greek writings. Serapis (Latin spelling, or Sarapis in Greek) was a syncretic Hellenistic-Egyptian god in Antiquity. It is well known that ancient Sumerian texts predated the Hebrew book of Genesis, including the idea of the existence of angels.
Although called different names, angels can also be found within other religions, mythologies, and lore. Hinduism has avatars, Buddhism has devas and bodhisattvas, the Greeks wrote about daimons, and other spirit beings similar to angels, such as guardian spirits and spirit guides, have been taught by tribal cultures.The reality is this from a biblical perspective. A messenger of God is a person either here on earth, or from the Kingdom of God. The number of wings is symbolic of status, nothing more. The difference being a real person, or Pagan mythology.
Quote ummm I agree.
ummm?
Quote Rev 12:11. They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.Putting part of it in bold does not explain who the “they” are.
Notice who the “they” are, once again:
“Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of OUR BRETHREN, who accused THEM before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And THEY (our brothers) overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
It was because of the word of their witnessing or testimony, and because of the blood of the lamb that “they” (our brothers) conquered him.
Yes, of course, you are right, “angel” and “messenger” exact same word.
And yes, that word can be translated “prince” or “leader” but I have no idea why you're telling us that.
I'm wondering if you could explain this, with a paragraph or something:
Quote If Michael and his messengers over come Satan by the blood of the Lamb, then Michael is not the Lamb. Quote A messenger of God is a person either here on earth, or from the Kingdom of God.
Of course, angels are messengers. The word that is translated as messenger and angel are the exact same. But, to distinguish between human messengers and spirit messerngers, we use the word “angels.”Quote (david @ Aug. 07 2008,09:24) Quote Hi david,
Yes, classic misuse of scripture, falsely patching individual verses together with logic and inference.
Thanks.Nick, perhaps you could explain to me why according to Mike's reasoning “it is impossible for Michael to be Jesus.”
It just doesn't teach that Michael and Jesus are the same person anywhere.In addition to that, we know that Jesus has an angel who may well b e Michael, but again because it is not actually taught, then we can only assume.
Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,Basically the argument that Jesus is Michael has about as much support as Jesus being Gabriel.
Quote Basically the argument that Jesus is Michael has about as much support as Jesus being Gabriel. No, there's pretty much no evidence for that.
But for some time, people have seen evidence for God changing Michael's name to Jesus (for his role on earth) as he often does when someone takes on a new role in his service.
Scholar, John A. Lees asserted:
“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael (the archangel) with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the ‘child’ and the archangel in Revelation 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl [Daniel]…”–John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. III, p.2048.T8, there are numerous scriptures which state a truth that does not allow for the trinity belief, without actually stating that God is not a trinity.
If the Bible clearly actually used these words: “God is not a trinity” then people would understand. It does not though, and neither does it say: “Jesus is Michael.”
But there are scriptures that make these things clear.(I'm not sure what this thread is really about, but there are 3 other threads on Michael/Jesus, and I'm not certain that is really to be the topic of this thread.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
