- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Men are frequently called messengers in the bible and occasionally died because of that role, and even a donkey brought a message and these are not angels surely? You are right nick. So what makes an angel an angel if it is not merely being a messenger? Well, we know the angels are spirit creatures. A donkey isn't a spirit creature. A man isn't a spirit creature. yes, they could be messengers, but no one would think they were an angel. The angels are spirit beings.
Was Jesus a spirit creature in heaven, just like the angels are? yes.Quote He who is life was used to give life to all the messengers of all types and his primary role was not as a messenger but as Messiah, a vessel for the Father.
I don't dispute this. But your point isn't really relevant. One of the ways he was a vessel was he role as the “Word,” or spokesman for Jehovah. He was, God's chief messenger…. his Archangel.Quote (david @ June 28 2006,06:21) Quote Hi kenrch,
Other princes exist, or Michael would not be called “one of the chief princes” in Daniel.
The JWs went down this path and decided Jesus was an archangel because of comparing 1 Thess 4 with John, and then since they only found one in the bible decided Jesus was Michael.
Any reading of Hebrews 1-2 , where Jesus is CONTRASTED with the angels must lead to the conclusion that he is not one.
He is the LIFE. Their life came through him so he is greater than any ordinary messenger, or even a chief of those messengers.Hi Nick.
Hebrews leads to that conclusion only if you have a very narrow view.
Notice how it begins:
Hebrews 1
God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. 4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.“So he became better than the angels.” Does this mean that at one time he wasn't better than them? I guess if you take this very literally it does.
Anyway Nick it starts out by saying the different ways that God spoke to people, by prophets, and now He spoke to us by means of his very Son, his only begotten Son.
If we go on to chapter 2, we see that it says:
“2 For if the word spoken through angels proved to be firm, and every transgression and disobedient act received a retribution in harmony with justice; 3 how shall we escape if we have neglected a salvation of such greatness in that it began to be spoken through [our] Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him.”So, we are told that God has spoken to us through angels in the past. And we are told that he has now spoken to us by means of His Son. And the greatness of this Son is spoken of in contrast with the angels.
So the strength and importance of the message is highlighted. But this in itself does not mean that Jesus is not of the same group.If King Howard the seventh decides to give his servant half his kingdom you may say:
“To what man has such an honor ever been given?”
The answer is that to that servant man he gave it.“To which of the angels has he ever said….” And you look at this as undisputable proof. The answer is that: to Jesus he said it.
It definitley contrasts the angels with Jesus, but doesn't show that Jesus is completely distinct from them, any more than the man whom half the kingdom was given is not a man. He is a man. But you still may well say after such a thing happens: “To what man has such a thing ever happened”? It doesn't mean that the guy who it happened to isn't a man. It simply shows the import of it, the significance, the honour.
Quote The JWs went down this path and decided Jesus was an archangel because of comparing 1 Thess 4 with John, and then since they only found one in the bible decided Jesus was Michael. Bit of an oversimplification. There are several lines of evidence pointing to this conclusion Nick.
Hi david,
TRhank you for your candid reply. The Son claimed to be the Life and scripture says all things came to be through him. Does this include the angels in your view?
If it does does it then include him too?Quote The Son claimed to be the Life and scripture says all things came to be through him. Does this include the angels in your view? Yes it does.
Quote If it does does it then include him too? Not really. It doesn't have to mean that. Especially if we understand what angels are.
Angels are created spirit beings. The word angel simply means “messenger.”
Jesus is a created spirit being, who happened to be Jehovahs greatest messenger. Of course, Jesus was very special, being the only begotten son. Unlike the other Son's of God, he was created by Jehovah himself.
But, that said, the term “angel” applies to Jesus.
Nick, I've been gone for a few days. I have some catching up to do and you are keeping me here in this thread. I want to answer your questions, but I want to look at the other threads too. I will catch up on this later.
david.
Quote (david @ June 28 2006,06:31) Quote Men are frequently called messengers in the bible and occasionally died because of that role, and even a donkey brought a message and these are not angels surely? You are right nick. So what makes an angel an angel if it is not merely being a messenger? Well, we know the angels are spirit creatures. A donkey isn't a spirit creature. A man isn't a spirit creature. yes, they could be messengers, but no one would think they were an angel. The angels are spirit beings.
Was Jesus a spirit creature in heaven, just like the angels are? yes.
Hi david,
I am amazed you think the Word who was God with God was only an angel servant.Quote Hi david,
I am amazed you think the Word who was God with God was only an angel servant.Ok, I said that Jesus is a spirt creature. I said that the angels are spirit creatures. “Was Jesus a spirit creature in heaven, just like the angels are? yes.” I'm not saying that Jesus is just like the angels Nick. I'm saying that he's a spirit creature in heaven, as the angels are.
To say that I believe that Jesus is “only an angel servant” is a gross misrepresentation of what I believe and what I just told you.
“Only” an angel servant.
When did I ever say this? In fact, didn’t I say the opposite?Working backwards, here is what I actually said to you. Notice especially the last comment:
Jesus is a created spirit being, who happened to be Jehovahs greatest messenger. Of course, Jesus was very special, being the only begotten son.
One of the ways he was a vessel was he role as the “Word,” or spokesman for Jehovah. He was, God's chief messenger…. his Archangel.
Jesus was God's chief messenger.
As I said, he was God's chief messenger, used for a special purpose. You may even call him an “arch” messenger, meaning “chief” messenger.
Jesus is a spirit creature. He is definitely a messenger. Of course, not just any messenger. But, still, he did bring his Father's message. No, I'm not saying he's “just another angel,” but the term fits him in all ways.
So, please stop believing or trying to convince people that I believe Jesus is “only” an angel servant. I don't remember ever conveying that thought Nick.
Maybe it was unclear that these were quotes from me in the past two pages:
Quote Jesus is a created spirit being, who happened to be Jehovahs greatest messenger. Of course, Jesus was very special, being the only begotten son. One of the ways he was a vessel was he role as the “Word,” or spokesman for Jehovah. He was, God's chief messenger…. his Archangel.
Jesus was God's chief messenger.
As I said, he was God's chief messenger, used for a special purpose. You may even call him an “arch” messenger, meaning “chief” messenger.
Jesus is a spirit creature. He is definitely a messenger. Of course, not just any messenger. But, still, he did bring his Father's message. No, I'm not saying he's “just another angel,” but the term fits him in all ways.
Notice especially the last quote. Am I saying he's “only” an angel, or messenger? Obviously not.
Quote (david @ June 29 2006,02:54) Quote Hi david,
I am amazed you think the Word who was God with God was only an angel servant.Ok, I said that Jesus is a spirt creature. I said that the angels are spirit creatures. “Was Jesus a spirit creature in heaven, just like the angels are? yes.” I'm not saying that Jesus is just like the angels Nick. I'm saying that he's a spirit creature in heaven, as the angels are.
To say that I believe that Jesus is “only an angel servant” is a gross misrepresentation of what I believe and what I just told you.
“Only” an angel servant.
When did I ever say this? In fact, didn’t I say the opposite?Working backwards, here is what I actually said to you. Notice especially the last comment:
Jesus is a created spirit being, who happened to be Jehovahs greatest messenger. Of course, Jesus was very special, being the only begotten son.
One of the ways he was a vessel was he role as the “Word,” or spokesman for Jehovah. He was, God's chief messenger…. his Archangel.
Jesus was God's chief messenger.
As I said, he was God's chief messenger, used for a special purpose. You may even call him an “arch” messenger, meaning “chief” messenger.
Jesus is a spirit creature. He is definitely a messenger. Of course, not just any messenger. But, still, he did bring his Father's message. No, I'm not saying he's “just another angel,” but the term fits him in all ways.
So, please stop believing or trying to convince people that I believe Jesus is “only” an angel servant. I don't remember ever conveying that thought Nick.
Hi david,
Michael is said to one of the chief princes in Daniel. So there are other princes and other chief princes.
The Son of God, in the same book, is said to be the prince of princes.
That makes it clear that he;Is not Michael
and
Is greater than MichaelMichael is an archangel or prince
Jesus is greater than this archangel.I'm sorry, how does that make it clear?
And, can you now retract or explain this comment:Quote Hi david,
I am amazed you think the Word who was God with God was only an angel servant.Can you still justify saying that I believe this?
Quote (david @ June 28 2006,06:31) The angels are spirit beings.
Was Jesus a spirit creature in heaven, just like the angels are? yes.
Hi david,
You made this comment but you do not have any scriptural basis for it do you?
.
Are all spirit creatures the same in nature?
You claim the Word is alike to angels but where is it written?What is written is that he is alike to God and all the rest is presumptuous speculation.
Nick, what is an angel? What is the very simple very basic meaning of “angel”?
Quote Hi david,
You made this comment but you do not have any scriptural basis for it do you?Which part are you disagreeing with?
–that Jesus is a spirit creature in heaven?
–or that angels are spirit creatures in heaven?Quote What is written is that he is alike to God and all the rest is presumptuous speculation. He is “alike” God.
Yes, he is the image of the invisible God. Being the firstborn of creation, he has spent a lot of time with His Father. He should be like him.
But he is created, hence, called the Son. The Son of God.
The angels are also created, called sons of God. (Job 38:7)
Both the angels and Jesus were created. Not so of Jehovah God.
Of course, Jesus is the only begotten Son.
Nick, I'm not saying that Jesus is equal with the angels in authority or anything like that. I'm not trying to dishonour Jesus Christ. (no disrepect to the angels)Back to my question: What is an angel.
Quote Hi david,
That all spirit creatures are the same in nature.
That is not written.What do you know of the nature of spirit beings? Tell me, please….
So you don't argue that:
–that Jesus is a spirit creature in heaven?
–or that angels are spirit creatures in heaven?Both the Hebrew mal·´akh´ and the Greek ag´ge·los literally mean “messenger.”
From the first book of the Bible to the last, these words occur nearly 400 times.When spirit messengers are indicated, the words are translated “angels,” but if the reference definitely is to human creatures, the rendering is “messengers.”
So a spirit messenger is an angel. Jesus is a spirit creature. He was also the “Word,” God's spokesman, and brought God's message, not his own.
Hence, the only thing holding us back is the image of the angels with wings and the image that you have of Jesus on the earth. They are not the same image and so, Jesus is not a spirit messenger, an angel.
We shouldn't confuse the world's common views with what the Bible says.
Hi david,
Are there different types of angels?Angelic majesties, Archangels, legions of warriors, messengers, watchers, cherubs, seraphim, cherubim, cherubs…..,
Who has seen them to discuss in detail their nature and abilities?
And you wish to include the Son of God among them?
He was not an angel, but had angels ready to rescue him in the garden or even to lift him up to stop him stubbing his toe on a stone.
Quote Who has seen them to discuss in detail their nature and abilities? And you wish to include the Son of God among them?
Well that says it all doesn't it? You keep implying that angels have a different “nature” than angels. Yet, you say: “Who has seen them to discuss their nature'?
If you don't even know what angels are Nick, how can you say so certainly that the word “angel” cannot be applied to Christ Jesus?Quote Are there different types of angels? Angelic majesties, Archangels, legions of warriors, messengers, watchers, cherubs, seraphim, cherubim, cherubs…..,
Nick, are there different types of men?
majesties, chief men, warrior men, messenger men, doctor men, etc? Yet they are all men. You could say they all have the same nature.Quote He was not an angel, but had angels ready to rescue him in the garden
If you're using the fact that the angels ministered to him, or were there to rescue him as proof that he cannot be an angel, I fail to understand your reasoning.
If the Vice President needs help, he has aids. If he falls to the ground, many doctors rush to him. Yet, both the doctors and the VP are men, are they not? Both have the same nature, yes?“as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister [or “serve”]…” (mat 20:28)
You say, the angels are for such and such a purpose–they're messengers or they serve. So, Jesus cannot possibly be called an angel. Yet, Jesus brought a message. Jesus came to “minister.”Hi david,
How do I know that the term angel cannot be applied to Jesus?Because the bible does not say Jesus is an angel and the bible is the basis for what we know about God and Jesus and the angels.
To do so is to go beyond faith into vain presumption.
To say he is Michael is to take such folly to a ridiculous extent.
JOHN 12:49
“because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.”hmmmm. Jesus was sent by his Father.
hmmmm. He was commanded by his Father what to speak.
Sounds an awefull lot like the exact definition of a messenger.Quote Because the bible does not say Jesus is an angel [literally “messenger”]and the bible is the basis for what we know about God and Jesus and the angels. What does the scripture above say Nick? Listen, even if you don't think he's an angel, you must admit that he did act as God's greatest messenger (among other things.) Since the word angel simply means messenger….
Nick, why do you keep mentioning Michael the archangel. I'm not bringing it up, but you keep discussing it. I'd rather keep that subject in it's own forum. But you keep mentioning it, so I feel I must add this. It doesn't take into account books which are not inspired of God, but is based on the Bible:
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.
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.
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.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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
