- This topic has 194 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Dear all,
Can we check over the aspect of who 'Michael' is in Scriptures. We cannot know for sure but there are still some interesting verses to link our views to.Daniel 10:7… Only Daniel saw the vision of 'the man clothed in linen'.
Notice the description given in the previous verses (verses 5-6)
And notice the reaction of the people who were with Daniel (Verse 7)
Notice in verse 9 that Daniel was 'asleep'. This is Scriptures for 'Out of body experience' or 'In the Spirit'!
Also, How powerful Spirits are that one 'touch' strengthened Daniel.
In Addition, notice that 'Michael' is 'One of the Cheif Princes' (Jude 1:9)… Now, we know that Micheal is also called 'the Captain of Army host of God' And an ArchAngel – so who is (are) the other Chief Prince(s) and ArchAngels?
Furthermore, we know that Scripture says (Psalm 82:7) that 'One of the Princes has Fallen!' – who might that fallen (ArchAngel) Prince be?
It is to be mused over whether 'Satan' could be called 'An ArchAngel' in light of the fact that he is the 'Chief Angel' of the Diabolics, the Fallen Angels.
Note that in Daniel, Michael is said to be 'Daniels Prince' – is this as opposed to the 'Other Prince'? (Note 'Chief Prince' would the full title here as it is stated elsewhere that there were other Princes (plural) who were not Chief.)
(Revelation 12:7-9)
And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
So, “Michael” battles against the dragon, who is shown in this verse to be called “Satan.” The dragon (Satan) was hurled down to the earth. On this alone, it doesn't seem that Biblically, Michael could be Satan, since they fight each other.
Now Ed is most likely going to take over this thread and not discuss this possibility that Toby raises, but rather, discuss reasons why he thinks Michael isn't another name for “Jesus” something this thread doesn't really seem to be about. To which I will respond: “Wrong thread, Ed.”
Hi David,
Yes those who claim the man Jesus pre existed seem to say he was another lesser god or, as the JWs say, an angel.
But the WORD WAS GOD.You sort of are in the wrong thread Nick. Did you read the first post? There are 7 other threads that discuss what you are discussing. This thread is unique.
As well, your comment, as brief as it was, contained many errors.
BACK TO THIS ACTUAL DISCUSSION:
Hi David and Nick, thankyou.
First, David, I did not say nor imply that Satan was Michael, I was trying to establish what Michael's position is given what little we know.
Perhaps someone could list what we know along with other connecting verses and possible links from Scriptures.
Here are some pointers:
1) Michael is said to be the Captain of the Angel host of God
2) Michael is said to be one of the Chief Princes (Note: 'one of' meaning that there are more than one!)
3) Michael is said to be 'The ArchAngel' but…
4) Michael is said to come with 'AN ArchAngel's cry' (Note: in a plural sense making it unclear whether there are more than one ArcAngels)
5) Michael battles with and overthrows Satan from Heaven
6) Jesus, while on Earth, said that he saw Satan fall like lightening from Heaven (Taken as it written, this rules out Jesus as Being Michael)Please, all, try to make this positive rather than a debate. Thankyou.
Hi toby,
There are several other threads on him which you can find by using the search tool
A correctionYou say
4) Michael is said to come with 'AN ArchAngel's cry' (Note: in a plural sense making it unclear whether there are more than one ArcAngels)Michael is not mentioned in 1 Thes 4.16
There are no verses that say Jesus is Michael and none that say he is an angel.
Despite this lack of one verse and any witnessing ones the JWS teach that Jesus is the archangel Michael!!
Toby………To me Jesus is a SON of MAN while angels are not sons of Men. That alone should rule Jesus out as being the Angel Michael, or any other angel, unless you believe as Jw's, Trinitarians. and Preexistences do. These all believe Jesus was MORPHED from another state of existence from an angel or God or demigod. None of them think Jesus was a PURE 100% HUMAN “Being” who came into Existence at his Berth on the EARTH> All who believe Jesus was something other than a simple ordinary Human Being are “IDOLATERS” rather they understand that or not.
Angels are a completely different creation then Man is. Man is God's crown Jewel of his creation even angels are to be in subjection to Him. know you not you shall judge Angels. we are told mankind is only a little below Angels l for the tasting of death but are raised in glory and honor and all of God creation will be under his feet, but we do not (yet see) (ALL) things under the foot of Man but we see Jesus who a Man like Us has all things placed under his feet a foretaste of what God the Father has in mind for us all. IMO
peace and love……………………………………gene
Quote (david @ Mar. 25 2012,05:18)
Now Ed is most likely going to take over this thread and not discuss this possibility that Toby raises, but rather, discuss reasons why he thinks Michael isn't another name for “Jesus” something this thread doesn't really seem to be about. To which I will respond: “Wrong thread, Ed.”
Hi David,Michael is the Archangel of God. (see Jude 1:9 and 1Thess 4:16)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 25 2012,06:13) i David,
Yes the JWs do promote many errors.
Yes, Nick, I agree with you that you are mostly wrong all the time. Well said. Also, I like it when you start a post to me saying “yes” as though you are agreeing with something i said.Nick, this tactic, which you have done roughly 300 times over the past 7 years is deceptive and misleading.
Yes, Nick, come out of her. Buy and then embrace the Bible. And learn how to stay on Topic. You are at least supposed to pretend to be a moderator, after all.
David,
Nick resigned from being a mod when he came back. He wanted to stay focused on being a pain in the butt instead.
Hi Toby.
Quote It is to be mused over whether 'Satan' could be called 'An ArchAngel' in light of the fact that he is the 'Chief Angel' of the Diabolics, the Fallen Angels. Sorry Toby. I misunderstood your post.
Whether Satan is called an arch (chief) angel or not, he was an angel, and he is chief of the demons, who I believe are fallen angels. So, the words arch and angel do apply to him. We are told that he is always trying to pretend to be an “angel of light.”
Anyway, the points you raised:
Here are some pointers:
1) Michael is said to be the Captain of the Angel host of God
2) Michael is said to be one of the Chief Princes (Note: 'one of' meaning that there are more than one!)
3) Michael is said to be 'The ArchAngel' but…
4) Michael is said to come with 'AN ArchAngel's cry' (Note: in a plural sense making it unclear whether there are more than one ArcAngels)
5) Michael battles with and overthrows Satan from Heaven
6) Jesus, while on Earth, said that he saw Satan fall like lightening from Heaven (Taken as it written, this rules out Jesus as Being Michael)I have a list of such points as well. I have never heard your point #6 before. It is interesting. But I don't think Jesus literally saw with his eyes Satan and his angels falling from heaven after Michael (and his angels) and Satan (and his angels) battled.
“Then the seventy returned with joy, saying: “Lord, even the demons are made subject to us by the use of your name.” At that he said to them: “I began to behold Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven.”
He was saying he could already see it (in his mind). Because of what had just happened previously, it was so sure to happen, that it was real to him. Notice that this verse is connected in thought to the sentence before it, where the demons were shown to be made subject to him.Perhaps he was looking forward, seeing the time when Michael would battle with Satan and hurl him down, somewhat like he had just dealt with these demons.
He could already “see” it happening.
Anyway, Revelation was written to show 'the things that would shortly take place.' it is also said to be written about the “day of the lord.”
These things both indicate that the events of Michael (whom ever he is, with his angels) battling Satan, would be in the future and not while Jesus was on earth.
Thoughts?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,05:01) David, Nick resigned from being a mod when he came back. He wanted to stay focused on being a pain in the butt instead.
Ah, I see my petitions and many letters to new zealand have worked. It only took 7 years. 🙂Toby, there are just a couple groups that believe that Michael is another name for Jesus while Jesus is in heaven. The Adventists say that Jesus is the arch angel, meaning he is the chief OVER the angels. I really don't know how people can argue with that thought, but they also say he is Michael the archangel.
JW's, who picked up some of their beliefs from Adventists, say that Jesus is Michael the archangel, meaning he is Michael and he is the one and only archangel or chief angel. Chief over the angels and an angel himself. The idea of jesus being an angel has been debated on this forum for years. T8 is one of a few who understand that the word “messenger” and “angel” are the exact same word, and that Jesus, being the “word” was God's primary messenger, sent by God, hence, using Greek language, the “arch” (chief) angel. Most people hate the idea. Here is why:WHY ALMOST EVERYONE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO REJECT THIS BELIEF
As one website said: “Michael the Archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. . . . Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1,14). Michael the Archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.”If Jesus is God Almighty, of course he is not an angel/messenger. But the trinity doctrine, although widely believed, is false. A related idea that seems to come up with this is the idea that Jesus was worshiped, and the angels aren’t worshiped. However, the word “proskyneo” has many meanings and the translator decides which is appropriate. Jesus was not worshipped. And he is not God almighty.
So when people say there is much evidence against this belief, often what they mean is that they feel there is a lot of evidence for the trinity, yet, that is not really true.And, before we get into the scriptures that discuss this, what you actually want to discuss, I would like to also include this:
SOME TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AND OTHERS
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.Also, J. N. D. Kelly noted:
“In a number of passages (from church father Hermas) we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’, and ‘glorious’. This angel is given the name Michael; and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael.”–J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper Brothers), p. 95Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature by McClintock and Strong submitted:
“…the ‘Sons of God’, or even in poetry, the ‘gods’ (Elohim), the ‘holy ones’, etc. are names which, in their full and proper sense, are applicable only to the Lord Jesus Christ. As He is ‘the Son of God’, so also is He the ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’ of the Lord.” –Volume I, “Angel”, p. 226.Scholar, Martin Werner, wrote:
“… in the Post-Apostolic period the appearances of angels in the Old Testament narrative, so far as they occurred in some way for the succour of men, had already begun to be interpreted as appearances of Christ. This identification long remained a favourite one, as Origen, Justin, Irenaeus, Novatian and the Letter of Hymenaeus as well as other documents abundantly show us.”–Martin Werner, D.D., The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 130I only include these quotes because everyone seems to have the idea that this is a new thought. It isn't. But whether new or old, doesn't matter. The scriptures:
The spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible.
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)
It's really really really important to understand the words Hb “malakh,” Gr “aggelos” (angel). If we were having this conversation in Greek, much of the arguements against Jesus being a “malakh” would seem very different than they do in English.
WHAT IS AN ANGEL (Hb “malakh,” Gr “aggelos”)?
Both the Hebrew mal·́akh́ and the Greek aǵge·los literally mean “messenger.” In translating the Bible, when spirit messengers are indicated, the words are translated “angels,” but if the reference definitely is to human creatures, the rendering is “messengers.” (Ge 16:7; 32:3; Jas 2:25; Re 22:8.)WHAT DOES THE TERM “ARCH” “ANGEL” LITERALLY MEAN?
Without question, Jesus is God’s chief messenger. He just is. But that doesn't mean is he is the arch angel spoken of or that he is Michael. But, I can't see how others don't understand that Jesus is unquestionably “sent” by God (a messenger; malakh/aggalos) and is God's chief (arch) malakh.
GOD likes to CHANGES PEOPLES NAMES. WHY?
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. Saul as Paul. (Gen 49:1,2; Mat 10:2; Acts 13:7
God has also changed peoples names when they take on new roles. While dying, Rachel called her newborn son Ben-oni (meaning “Son of My Mourning”), but her bereaved husband Jacob chose to name him Benjamin (Son of the Right Hand). (Ge 35:16-18)
An event in a person’s later life sometimes provided the basis for giving a new name to a person. Esau, for example, got his name Edom (meaning “Red”) from the red lentil stew for which he sold his birthright.—Ge 25:30-34.
Jehovah changed the name of Abram to Abraham (“Father of a Crowd” [Multitude]) and that of Sarai (possibly, “Contentious”) to Sarah (“Princess”), both new names being prophetic. (Ge 17:5,6,15,16) Because of his perseverance in grappling with an angel, Jacob was told: “Your name will no longer be called Jacob but Israel [Contender (Perseverer) With God; or, God Contends], for you have contended with God and with men so that you at last prevailed.” (Ge 32:28) This change in name was a token of God’s blessing and was later confirmed. (Ge 35:10) Evidently, therefore, when the Scriptures prophetically speak of “a new name,” the reference is to a name that would appropriately represent its bearer.—Isa 62:2; 65:15; Re 3:12.ok, haven't gotten to the actual scriptures that anyone uses to support this yet, but it seems that people spend most of their time explaining that jesus can't possibly be an “angel” because in their mind, an “angel” is a creature with wings and jesus doesn't have wings? I don't know. They don't understand that angel and messenger are the EXACT…SAME…WORD.
The Bible definitely doesn't state that “Jesus is Michael, the archangel.” But, here are why some believe he is:
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.
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.
This idea is one reason some believe that.“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.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 26 2012,05:43) Hi David,
So no scriptural evidence.
seems a futile task.
Yes Nick,
virtually none of your posts have scriptures in them. I have noticed this as well. They seem to be mostly quips and buddhist philosophy based. I agree.Looking back at 1 Thess 4:16:
Notice the second half of 1 Thess 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.”
Now let’s look at Jesus’ words:
““Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:25-29)
A comparison of these two scriptures seems to indicate that Jesus and Michael are the same person.
It is Jehovah’s will for Jesus to resurrect the dead. (John 6:38-40) Jesus issues “a commanding call” to the dead to come forth, just as he did on occasion while on earth. (John 11:43) But now he calls, not with a man’s voice as he did then, but with all the power of “an archangel’s voice” (en pho·né arkh·ag·gélou). However, only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice! And no one but Jesus has been given the authority to resurrect the dead. Again, at John 5 and 1 Thessalonians we see the same event–one names Michael, and one names Jesus.It is on hearing JESUS' voice that these are resurrect, much like when Jesus “cried out with a loud voice: “Lazarus, come on out!” and he was resurrected to life. Similarly, John 5:25-29 says they will “hear his [Jesus’] voice and come out.”
Commenting on one aspect of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul wrote:
“because the Lord [JESUS] 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.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) (NWT)The dead are raised. They hear a voice. Who's voice? John 5:25-29 says they “will HEAR HIS [JESUS'] VOICE AND COME OUT….” It says “THE DEAD WILL HEAR THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and . . . LIVE.
So who's voice is it that raises the dead? Is it Jesus' voice or an archangel's voice? Or are they the same?
It is Jehovah’s will for Jesus to resurrect the dead. (John 6:38-40) Correct?
““Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when THE DEAD WILL HEAR THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and those who have given heed will LIVE. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will HEAR HIS [ JESUS'] VOICE AND COME OUT….” (John 5:25-29)It is on hearing JESUS' voice that these are resurrected, much like when Jesus “cried out with a loud voice: “Lazarus, come on out!” and he was resurrected to life.
In the Bible, no one but Jesus has been given the authority to resurrect the dead. And it is HIS voice that is associated with this.
Commenting on one aspect of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul wrote:
“because the Lord [JESUS] 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.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) (NWT)The dead are raised. They hear a voice. Who's voice? John 5:25-29 says they “will HEAR HIS [JESUS'] VOICE AND COME OUT….” It says “THE DEAD WILL HEAR THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and . . . LIVE.
So who's voice is it that raises the dead? Is it Jesus' voice or an archangel's voice? Or are they the same?
This is another line of evidence that some use to support the idea that Michael is another name for Jesus while in heaven.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
