- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi david,
Quote (david @ June 30 2006,04:12) 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.
Like you said, there are no verses that say that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, but we do know Christ has an ang
el.Revelation 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,I think it much more likely that Michael is the angel mentioned here, but again there is no direct proof of that either, as far as I know.
Also it is possible that Michael heralds the return of Christ, but to say that Michael is Christ for this reason seems contradictory to me.
1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.It seems clear that there are 3 identities being referenced (besides the dead). God, the Lord, and Michael.
- Trintarians say The Lord and God is the same being.
- JWs say that the Lord and Michael is the same being.
- But on the face of it, it is talking of three, not two. I cannot understand why we can't read it at face value.
In other words if we can make the scripture say that Jesus is Michael, then using the same license, you can use it to say that Jesus is God (the Almighty).
I believe neither of those explanations.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 09 2006,00:51) You are a blessing to all cubes.
Thank you, Nick. I am just as blessed by my fellowship here.Many seem to think that if Jesus is Michael the archangel, that this would mean that Jesus was of the class of spirit beings usually referred to in the Bible as “angels”. This is not so. The archangel is not, has never been, and will never be, of the class that is referred to as “angels” in Hebrews 1:4-14.
The word “archangel” designates Michael as one who is boss over the angels, just as the word “architect” designates one as over the builders. Thus the archangel is a step above the angels that are often referred to in the Bible.
However, Jesus is spoken of the “angel [messenger] of the covenant”. (Malachi 3:1) The word “angel” in the Bible does not always refer to the “angels” that are being spoken of in Hebrews 1:4-14, because it can also refer to anyone who acts as a messenger.
http://tinyurl.com/rglk5 (Hebrew, malak)
http://tinyurl.com/r9btd (Greek, aggelos)Jesus was above the angels mentioned in Hebrews 1 before he came to the earth, but became lower than they when he came to earth. (Hebrews 2:9) Hebrews 1:4 tells of Jesus' exaltation above the angels. Jesus' exaltation is also spoken of in Hebrews 1:3; 12:2, as well as Ephesians 1:21,22; Philippians 2:9. It was not to an angel that this exaltation came, but the man Jesus was exalted from his lowly estate, lower than the angels, to a state higher than the angels, even “far higher” than he had enjoyed before his debasement to the earth.
Christian love,
Ronald
http://godandson.reslight.netRegarding 1 Thessalonians 4:16:
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with [Greek, *en*, Strong's #1722] a shout, with [en] the voice of the archangel, and with [en] God's trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first.
The argument is often given that Jesus is accompanied by the voice of the archangel, and thus Jesus is not the archangel. However, the Greek word *en* does not mean in company of, but rather “instrument” or “locality”. As meaning “with”, it used in the Bible in the sense like: I am writing this “with” my pen; I am talking with my mouth.
a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between (1519) and (1537))
Thayer and Smith. “Greek Lexicon entry for En”. “The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon”.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi? number=1722&version=kjv
Tiny url for above:
http://tinyurl.com/8cwvdIt appears that the koine Greek word en is never used in the NT to mean “accompanied by” or “alongside of”.
Jesus comes with a shout – a sudden loud cry. It was said of a popular blues singer: “He sang with a shout, a tear, a laugh, with love and with the blues.” The word “with” does not mean “accompanied by”, but it expresses the mode used. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not speak of a literal shout, but “shout” is used as expression of a signal given, especially to the watchers, that Jesus had arrived. The shout, however, is Jesus' shout — it is his shout, not a shout that simply accompanies Jesus.
Jesus comes with the “voice” of the archangel. Again, using “with” in the sense an instrument used, Jesus comes *with* the voice, in a sense that one would say that I am writing *with* this pen. Jesus is not being accompanied by the voice; he is the provider of the voice. One might say, “John spoke with his voice”. This does not mean that John spoke in accompaniment with his voice, but rather that John spoke by means of his voice. Likewise Jesus, comes with the voice of the archangel. His voice as the archangel is used a means to convey his coming. Again, it is, of course, not speaking of literal speaking and making sounds with a voice, but “voice” is used to designate that a signal is given to the watchers that he comes.
Jesus comes with the trumpet of God. Jesus is the one who uses the trumpet of God as a means to make known to the watchers of his return. Again, *en* can be seen to be used in the sense of instrumentality, not being accompanied with.
The basic meaning of “en”, however, is that of position. If this be the meaning applied to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, then we have Jesus coming “in” a shout, “in” the voice of the archangel, and “in” the trumpet of God. This could only be applied as meaning in the authority of, as far as “in the voice of the archangel”, and “in” the trumpet of God. Thus Jesus would come, not with a man's voice as he did while on earth, but with all the power of “the voice of the archangel.” If the title “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to a lesser being, then the reference to “the voice of the archangel” would not be appropriate, but would be describing a voice of lesser authority.
Some thoughts I had written before for the RL website.
Christian love,
RonaldQuote (ronday888 @ July 09 2006,19:44) Many seem to think that if Jesus is Michael the archangel, that this would mean that Jesus was of the class of spirit beings usually referred to in the Bible as “angels”. This is not so. The archangel is not, has never been, and will never be, of the class that is referred to as “angels” in Hebrews 1:4-14. The word “archangel” designates Michael as one who is boss over the angels, just as the word “architect” designates one as over the builders. Thus the archangel is a step above the angels that are often referred to in the Bible.
However, Jesus is spoken of the “angel [messenger] of the covenant”. (Malachi 3:1) The word “angel” in the Bible does not always refer to the “angels” that are being spoken of in Hebrews 1:4-14, because it can also refer to anyone who acts as a messenger.
http://tinyurl.com/rglk5 (Hebrew, malak)
http://tinyurl.com/r9btd (Greek, aggelos)Jesus was above the angels mentioned in Hebrews 1 before he came to the earth, but became lower than they when he came to earth. (Hebrews 2:9) Hebrews 1:4 tells of Jesus' exaltation above the angels. Jesus' exaltation is also spoken of in Hebrews 1:3; 12:2, as well as Ephesians 1:21,22; Philippians 2:9. It was not to an angel that this exaltation came, but the man Jesus was exalted from his lowly estate, lower than the angels, to a state higher than the angels, even “far higher” than he had enjoyed before his debasement to the earth.
Christian love,
Ronald
http://godandson.reslight.net
Hi Ron,
Michael is said to be ” the great prince” and [Dan 12.1]”one of the chief princes” in Dan 10.13. I agree these princes, or archangels are above angels being in authority over them. But Michael is not alone.And Jesus is above him and the other princes. Daniel calls him “Messiah the prince”[Dan 9.25] and “the prince of princes”, just as it call his Father “the God of gods”[Dan 11.36]
When Jesus comes “with the voice of archangel” he also comes with the host of heaven and clouds. He is in authority over all including the archangels so surely the voice is not his, but it is a voice that speaks in his name just as he speaks in his Father's name.
Good post Nick.
To ronday888,
Quote (ronday888 @ July 10 2006,14:51) Jesus comes with the “voice” of the archangel.
Lets change this sentence construction with different identities.Joseph comes with the voice of the King.
or
Adam comes with the voice of the angel.
or
Jesus comes with the voice of God.
Even though the above is not true, it still cannot be read as the same person unless you actually believe before hand that it is the same person.
The sentence construction appears to speak of another.
Hi T8, Nick, Cubes , Ronald & everybody else!
I think David has left the building. I tried emailing him through HN and his email bounced. So I don't think he's going to answer. I recognize his material from the convoluted JW books and articles that its members are told to read exclusively. No one is ever encouraged to go anywhere else to verify Biblical facts, (it's forbidden), so that is why wrong information like this is perpetuated even when they find out its wrong. You're only allowed to talk and fellowship with others who have been taught the same nonsense found in the WitchTower and Asleep magazines.
T8 said: Like you said, there are no verses that say that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, but we do know Christ has an angel.
That's right. In fact Peter did also. After the angel broke him out of prison, he ran to the house of fellow believers who had been praying for him. The housemaid, Rhoda heard his knock at the gate but
did not open to him knowing he was in prison. She thought it was Peter's angel. She said, “Peter is at the door!” 15 “You're out of your mind,” they told her. When she kep insisting that it was so, they said,”It must be his ANGEL.”(Acts 12:14-15)Christ also spoke of the least little ones as having angels who are always before God.
“See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their
ANGELS in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 18:10)So WE ourselves have ANGELS. They are servants, gaurdians and messengers. I would not recommend trying to converse with or worship them as that would be idolatry.
Ronald said: Jesus was above the angels mentioned in Hebrews 1 before he came to the earth, but became lower than they when he came to earth. (Hebrews 2:9) Hebrews 1:4 tells of Jesus' exaltation above the angels. Jesus' exaltation is also spoken of in Hebrews 1:3; 12:2, as well as Ephesians 1:21,22; Philippians 2:9. It was not to an angel that this exaltation came, but the man Jesus was exalted from his lowly estate, lower than the angels, to a state higher than the angels, even “far higher” than he had enjoyed before his debasement to the earth.
BINGO! If you don't know from the scriptures who Christ is, you will make obvious mistakes such as believing he was an angel which would be impossible because other angels would NEVER be commanded to worship him. Good post Ronald & T8.
Michael acts as Christ's announcer, and is not Christ himself.
Blessings all around!
Semmy
Hi semmy,
The work, and the results are the Lord's so while we do not expect to be popular we should also always expect some fruit.Although were often first prone to think of angels in terms of messengers, we may be equally prone as to imagine them as heralding in a word from God. This is true, but they are also active agents. For instance, when Elisha was saying to Elijah that they were greatly out-numbered in a war-zone arrayed against them..Elijah said, Lord open his eyes that he might see. Then Elisha saw warring angels covering both sides of the valley.
In numerous ways, the messages angels bore, were in the very deeds they preformed. They do not just make announments.
Angels are also assigned to individuals. Both good and evil ones. If it is possible to be possessed by fallen spirits of darkness, I think it equally possible to be possessed by unfallen spirits of light. Yet we would not necessarily consider it to actually be these messengers from above. We would say, the glory of God, or Jesus Christ or anointing etc.
I imagine the spiritual world to be a sphere where exists states of being, from the Highest of the high, to the lowest of the low.
side note. The bible really hasn't developed its foundational truths in any type of systematic theology. So there is reading the lines, and then by way of meditation, reading between the lines. That is, lifting the words from the pages and letting them dance to the music of your imagination. Divine imagination may be like courting the angels of God.
Like how the fall came to pass. The fall from very high state of being..and how the Spirit now seeks to restore that state of being in and through Jesus the Anointed One.
Or the many ways in which God has revealed himself. And in each revelation, because of the nature of that revelation, a name was appropriately given for God. He has revealed himself as “The Most High God” (El-Elyon). Other times as a God more seemingly human, as in terms of his wrath. In one place even repenting that he made man. This type of thing, is the type of person Bill Moyer seems to have as his quests quite often..on “Faith and Reason”. And so becomes their reasoning way of basically saying, 'who knows what God is going to show up'. Sometimes he is portray like this and other times like this.
I can only imagine the type of doubt, concerning the 'unchanging' God, these forms of ideas must cast in the minds of many veiwers. If God in his integrity can be up-rooted, then God basically doesn't exist. The bible is then relegated to a book of stories from which we can learn some things, but is basically the word of men and not God.
Here is where I take my notion, that when dealing with the unchanging God full of integrity..that he is not the only side of the equation. He is dealing with hard-headed, stiff-necked people and has sent prophets and so forth, to get up in their kitchen and tell them just exactly what is on the line.
So in terms of states or gradations of being. From the highest to the lowest. And the angelic beings that serve their causes, can often land us in the experiencial knowledge of Romans chapter 7. Or as Paul said earilier in the book, 'Know you not, that to whom you yeild yourselves to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey?'.
I've heard it said, as possibly many of you, that 'The Angel of the Lord' was a theophany of Christ.
What I am trying to get at, is, the spiritual world may be a world of theophanies. In that, 'His servants you are, to whom you obey'. There is the Higher Calling, or voice, of our angelic selves, so-to-speak. And the lower calling of our demons within (as Oprah would put it). And the tension, or wrestling between them. As we yeild to whatever voice is present “when I would do good, I find that evil is present with me”, Paul said, ..in that yeilding, is a kind of influenciary theophany of stepping into that voice of being.
Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 26 2006,05:30) Jesus being the angel of the Lord gives new meanings to the titles; the Son of God
and
the Word of God
Hi mercy,
In Hebrews 1-2 God's Spirit surely makes it very clear that Jesus is distinct from the angels.There are sons of God in Gen 6 and Jb 1,2,38
But there is only one only begotten Son of God
Nick, what's your definition of angels? What are they exactly? Simply put, what are they? We know they're not human, for example. We know they're spirit creatures, being created, not through conception, but created individually. We know they had a beginning. We know they are powerful, even being called “gods.” We know they are spirit creatures. What else?
In your mind, I guess they would be “any spirit creature that isn't Jesus.” (God was not created, and thus could never be called a creature.) And if that is your end all understanding of what angels are, please explain.
only begotten = monogenes = unique
Jesus is the unique Son of God
What makes him unique? Was he only unique after being born of a virgin and his incarnation? Was he only unique after his baptism?
I think we both believe he was unique before all this?
Whom is he unique too? What standard is Jesus's uniqueness being measured by?
I propose it his God's other Sons. He is one of their companions yet is exalted above them because of his qualities.
Jesus is unique because he was made in the express image of his Father. He was the firstborn and given the inheritance of his Father. He was the word that spoke forth and sustains creation. He was the architect at God's side.
I propose he was the angel of the Lord.
No man has ever seen the Father.
Who did Abraham and Moses see then?
The angel of the Lord.
Who is the exact the image of the Father?
Jesus is!Quote Jesus is the unique Son of God What makes him unique? Was he only unique after being born of a virgin and his incarnation? Was he only unique after his baptism?
I think we both believe he was unique before all this?
Something or someone can be unique without having to be a completely different entity.
Mercy, here's something to consider:
“Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright,”
Job was unique. No question. Jehovah himself said that there was “no one like him in the earth.” That makes him unique.
Similarly, THERE IS NO ONE LIKE JESUS IN HEAVEN. I truly believe that. I believe it just as much as I believe Jehovah's words about Job.
But that doens't mean Jesus isn't an angel anymore than it means that Job was not a man.
Job was the greatest of the orientals, unique, but he was a man.
I believe Jesus was the arch angel, unique, but still, he could be classified as an angel, and is.david
David,
I am not disagreeing with you.
Except concerning Michael.
Nick,
I don't think that the possiblity of Jesus being the Angel of the Lord does not have a basis in scripture. It clearly has evidence. Can I proclaim beyond doubt? No I can't.
Dictionaries, Encylopedias the world over, state the plain truth that everything Jehovah's Witnesses believe, the way we act, it is all based on our Biblical beliefs. We base everything on the Bible.
I quote scriptures and reason. Count the scriptures I have used in the the past year and count the scriptures you have used. I've quoted from at least twice as many scriptures. Count them if you don't believe. Yet, you accuse me and not yourself of not basing my beliefs on scripture.
You base your beliefs on yourself. You are the only person on the planet with that exact set of beliefs.
Either you're right and everyone else is wrong, or you are wrong.And you are wrong without question when you say that my belief is not based on scriptural teaching.
Please Nick, show everyone where I've said: “JW's believe this, so I do to.”
Or rather, have I used scripture to show what I believe? Hmmm. Obviously, you are wrong here. Sad. You make me sad sometimes.Quote I don’t think that the possibility of Jesus being the Angel of the Lord does not have a basis in scripture. It clearly has evidence. Can I proclaim beyond doubt? No I can’t. Mercy. I have a question for everyone. Are we only to believe things that the Bible directly plainly says? Are we allowed to use our God given “soundness of mind” and “power of reason. “Paul ‘reasoned with them from the scriptures,’ the Bible says. Are we allowed to do this? Of course, if something we teach directly violates other parts of the Bible, it would be wrong. But if there is a great deal of evidence, albeit circumstantial, that points to a certain conclusion, how much of such evidence is required before we are allowed to come to a conclusion? Or do we just not come to a conclusion? We find one scripture that indicates God is not a trinity. Then, another. Then, another. At what point does it become true, and obvious. Really, one scripture should be enough. NICK, 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. With the trinity, there is what seems to be a mountain of circumstantial evidence. When there’s so much, it no longer seems circumstantial. But tell a trinitarian that…. He sees all such scriptures as circumstantial and in fact, sees none of them as proof. You find a scripture that plainly disagrees with the trinity. You find another and another. When can we come to a conclusion? Do we weigh all the evidence in our minds? Do we look at the pluses and minuses? Do we add them up? If there is evidence that Jesus is Michael the archangel, how much is required?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
