Jesus Is Michael

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Jesus Is Michael

Post #1

Post by DavidLeon »

For some reason, which I could never quite understand, it seems extremely difficult for some people, especially skeptics, to understand that Jesus and Michael are the same. Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael.

1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus’ existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus’ position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah’s creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.

3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.

4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.

5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.

Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."

W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.

John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.

The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985

Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"

Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39.
I no longer post here

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5585
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 208 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #11

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
DavidLeon wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 am For some reason, which I could never quite understand, it seems extremely difficult for some people, especially skeptics, to understand that Jesus and Michael are the same.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will tell you why I cannot accept this interpretation (and yes, it is an interpretation, just as the trinity is an interpretation):

Christ does not teach this of Himself.

He could have made a simple statement if it were true (same with the trinity). But He does not teach it. Even in Revelation, He is referred to as Himself (Jaheshua - though most texts will write Jesus). Why would Christ be referred to as both in the same book/place after He has already returned to heaven? Yes, Michael is in revelation, but not as the Christ. Michael is never described as the Lamb of God, or as the Truth, or as the Word, or the Way, or the Son of God, or the High Priest, or the King (nor as the King of Kings and Lord of lords), etc.

Just as Christ does not teach that He is part of a triune God, Christ does not teach that He is the arkangel Michael.


Christ is the Son of God. The Word. The Life. The Way. The Truth. The firstborn. The Amen. The Faithful and True Witness. His name is Jaheshua. <-these are things that He taught (and teaches still).

He does not teach that He is Michael.

Christ does not teach - anywhere - that He is the archangel Michael. Since He (Christ) is the One to whom I listen and obey, I will continue to listen to Him and accept His word/teaching on this (and any other) matter.

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."
Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael.
Sure.
1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus’ existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.
Indeed. But many angels (including other princes - Michael is one) existed in heaven before Christ came to earth. There is no connection between Christ having existed in heaven before coming to earth - and the idea that Christ is Michael.

2. Jesus’ position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah’s creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.
A - You're basing this point on an assumption.

Are there not four angels holding back the four winds so that no harm comes to Israel? All four angels are doing something powerful for Israel, are they not? Therefore, other angels can be chosen to do important tasks to protect Israel. Gabriel came and brought messages to people in Israel from God as well - (and of course the word angel simply means messenger)... but does that make Gabriel, Christ (the Word of God, who spoke as God told Him to speak)?

Of course not.


And if Michael serves and supports Christ, would he (Michael) not also serve and support those who belong to Christ - such as Israel? Michael is the prince of Israel, after all. But Christ is the Prince of princes (of which Michael is one).

Michael IS a powerful angel - one of the chief princes - and he has remained loyal to Christ, supporting and serving Christ.

But Michael is not Christ.

3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
Michael is one of the chief princes.

We know that there are multiple princes (Daniel 10:13)- and each prince has a principality, such as Persia, or Greece, or Israel, etc, Daniel 10:20.


But Christ is prince OF princes. He is over them all (including Michael).


As for 1 Thessalonians, Christ coming with the voice of an archangel does not make Him an and/or that archangel... anymore than Christ coming with the trumpet call of God makes Him God.


Overcomer summed that up here:
Jesus is the one coming down from heaven. But do the words “voice of the archangel” mean that Jesus is an archangel, let alone THE archangel Michael? Not at all. If I said my sister sings with the voice of an angel, would you assume she’s an angel? And if Jesus comes with the trumpet call of God, why doesn’t the JW assume that he’s God? After all, if the one clause tells us Jesus is an archangel then why doesn’t the next clause, structured exactly the same way, mean that he’s God?
And just because Michael disputed with Satan about something does not indicate that Michael is Christ.

Michael is the arkangel who remained faithful to Christ. The Adversary is the arkangel (originally a guardian angel) who turned away from Christ (to look at himself).


4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.
A - That is not true.

The Adversary has angels as well.

Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.

B - There are multiple princes (as Daniel shows). Christ is prince of princes (multiple).


5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.
This is not evidence that Christ is Michael.

Many experts believe the trinity is true; many experts believe hell (as a place of eternal torment) is true; etc.

Even the people who believe that Christ is Michael believe other things that are false. So how is it that their beliefs could be credible as support?


**


And of course there is the verse that speak AGAINST the Son of God being an angel (and an archangel is still an angel).


**

Christ is the Son of God, born from God, brought forth from God (as Proverbs 8 does make clear, and yes, my Lord does teach that He is Wisdom. Does Christ not call out? Do not those who find Christ, find life?)




May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to hear the truth of this (and any) matter, from THE Truth: Christ Jaheshua. And may anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #12

Post by DavidLeon »

tam wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:25 pmAnd if Michael serves and supports Christ, would he (Michael) not also serve and support those who belong to Christ - such as Israel? Michael is the prince of Israel, after all. But Christ is the Prince of princes (of which Michael is one).

Michael IS a powerful angel - one of the chief princes - and he has remained loyal to Christ, supporting and serving Christ.

But Michael is not Christ.

David wrote:3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
Michael is one of the chief princes.
We are not talking about princes we are talking about angels. Archangel. Meaning chief or foremost of the angels. You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel. He's an angel. If Michael is the chief of angels and Jesus is an angel then Michael doesn't serve him. Michael is his chief. Jesus would be Michael's subordinate. That isn't the case. Jesus is subordinate only to Jehovah.

Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless. One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
I no longer post here

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5585
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 208 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #13

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
DavidLeon wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:10 am
tam wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:25 pmAnd if Michael serves and supports Christ, would he (Michael) not also serve and support those who belong to Christ - such as Israel? Michael is the prince of Israel, after all. But Christ is the Prince of princes (of which Michael is one).

Michael IS a powerful angel - one of the chief princes - and he has remained loyal to Christ, supporting and serving Christ.

But Michael is not Christ.

David wrote:3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
Michael is one of the chief princes.
We are not talking about princes we are talking about angels.
If we are talking about Michael, then we are talking about princes. I posted the relevant scriptures in my original post above.

But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; Daniel 10:13

“Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will go back to fight with the prince of Persia.a When I leave, the prince of Greece will come. 21 However, I will tell you the things recorded in the writings of truth. There is no one strongly supporting me in these things but Miʹcha·el, your prince Daniel 10:20-21
Archangel. Meaning chief or foremost of the angels.


Michael is one of the foremost princes (as even the NWT translates). "One of" means that there are others.
You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel.
I did not agree to that (not in the way that you are using the word, angel. Angel means messenger, so as the Word of God, Christ could be described as an angel - but that would hold true for Him even as a man). I assume that you are using the word angel more along the sense of a spirit being (which both Christ and God are spirit beings, but you would not describe God as an angel. Well, Christ is as God is.)

Christ taught that He is the Son of God. He never taught that He was Michael (or that he was one of the angels).

And Hebrews 1 speaks quite a bit about the Son as being separate and distinct from an angel.

An archangel (such as Michael) is still an angel.
Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless.
A - I am not religious. I belong to no religion. I have faith and I am spiritual (we are to worship God in spirit and in truth).

B - I use the name my Lord showed me IS His name. How could the true name of Christ - the only name under heaven by which we will be saved - be pointless? How could using His name be pointless?

You may consider such things pointless, but I use my Lord's name as He showed me because a) it is the truth and the truth matters; b) His is the only name under heaven by which we will be saved, and c) out of love for Him. You don't learn someone's name and then refuse to use it.
One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
Jesus is not the English translation OR transliteration of Jaheshua (or even of Yeshua). My Lord came in the name of His Father (JAHVEH). His name has the name of His Father in it (JAH'eshua). Just as many of the prophets before Christ had the name (or title) of God in their name.

ELiJAH (my God is JAH)
EzekiEL
Jeremiah
Zekariah
Daniel
Israel

(even some of the above names would have had the name of God in them, but that has been lost, removed, perhaps due to the practice of Israel to not pronounce or write God's name)

Do you suppose the prophets would have the name of God in their names, but the One who came in the name of His Father, would not?

Jaheshua = Jah saves/savior of JAH

My Lord's name has meaning.

You will note though that I did not insist you or anyone else use anything. I simply spoke the truth as my Lord has taught me, and I use His name as He has shown me.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

DavidLeon
Under Probation
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #14

Post by DavidLeon »

tam wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pmIf we are talking about Michael, then we are talking about princes. I posted the relevant scriptures in my original post above.

Michael is one of the foremost princes (as even the NWT translates). "One of" means that there are others.
I'm not arguing this. Both Michael and Jesus were both princes and spirit creatures. We are talking about the archangel over angels. That's the discussion.
tam wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
David wrote:You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel.
I did not agree to that (not in the way that you are using the word, angel. Angel means messenger, so as the Word of God, Christ could be described as an angel - but that would hold true for Him even as a man). I assume that you are using the word angel more along the sense of a spirit being (which both Christ and God are spirit beings, but you would not describe God as an angel. Well, Christ is as God is.)
I don't think this terribly relevant to the discussion, but it is such an excellent series of points you are making I have to address it. Where I've underlined your quote above I agree with. Jesus was an angel even as a man. As you've pointed out angel means messenger. When the word applies to a man in scripture it is rendered messenger, and when to a spirit creature it is rendered angel. Spirit creatures that have taken on the physical form can be referred to as angels, men, God and even Jehovah.

The portion of your quote I've applied bold text is an excellent point. Not that I didn't know it but I have never thought about it as such. For that I thank you. The part of your quote I've italicized I flat out disagree if you mean to imply the trinity. You must have meant it in some other capacity but I have no idea why. In some ways Christ is as God is. In some ways Michael is. The meaning of the name itself asks the question. In some ways Satan is as God is and we are as God is, so I don't know what you are talking about. Since you had just made the point where God wasn't as Christ is (an angel) I can't even guess what you mean.
tam wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pmChrist taught that He is the Son of God. He never taught that He was Michael (or that he was one of the angels).

And Hebrews 1 speaks quite a bit about the Son as being separate and distinct from an angel.

An archangel (such as Michael) is still an angel.
David wrote:Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless.
A - I am not religious. I belong to no religion. I have faith and I am spiritual (we are to worship God in spirit and in truth).

B - I use the name my Lord showed me IS His name. How could the true name of Christ - the only name under heaven by which we will be saved - be pointless? How could using His name be pointless?

You may consider such things pointless, but I use my Lord's name as He showed me because a) it is the truth and the truth matters; b) His is the only name under heaven by which we will be saved, and c) out of love for Him. You don't learn someone's name and then refuse to use it.
One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
Jesus is not the English translation OR transliteration of Jaheshua (or even of Yeshua). My Lord came in the name of His Father (JAHVEH). His name has the name of His Father in it (JAH'eshua). Just as many of the prophets before Christ had the name (or title) of God in their name.

ELiJAH (my God is JAH)
EzekiEL
Jeremiah
Zekariah
Daniel
Israel

(even some of the above names would have had the name of God in them, but that has been lost, removed, perhaps due to the practice of Israel to not pronounce or write God's name)

Do you suppose the prophets would have the name of God in their names, but the One who came in the name of His Father, would not?

Jaheshua = Jah saves/savior of JAH

My Lord's name has meaning.

You will note though that I did not insist you or anyone else use anything. I simply spoke the truth as my Lord has taught me, and I use His name as He has shown me.


[sigh] I can take you to several scriptures where Jesus taught that he was one of the angels. I'm from the realm above, you are from the realm below, before Abraham I was, you are of this world, I am not of this world.

There isn't one scripture where you can take me to Jesus correcting someone that his name was what you say it is. He and his followers spoke several languages, he had several names. English is Jesus. You can call him something else if you want and then you can justify that and meantime life outside goes on all around us.

At the end of the day you have two options. Jesus was either Michael or a subordinate of Michael. The former is true, the later isn't.

ETA: I was going to edit the last part about the name out, but I've decided to keep it and explain why. It isn't so much that I disagree with the name's meaning it's that I tend to bristle when that sort of interpretation is introduced in a way which seems to me more significant than it is in the context of the discussion. A prime example of this is people insisting on using Yahweh instead of Jehovah. You can get bogged down in a big discussion that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and most of the time the name is being used in some religious sense. Sometimes it is relevant but more often it reflects some trappings of ideology.

So, it becomes Redundant. I'm frustrated lately because I don't have the time to do all that I want to do and it's showing in my limited participation. Especially on occasions I don't have time to address posts that I would really like to address. So there's little bits and pieces of me scattered here and there.

You made some good points Tam, the fault is mine. I have to learn to adjust and for a while choose my battles carefully.
I no longer post here

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 5585
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 208 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #15

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
DavidLeon wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:52 pm
tam wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pmIf we are talking about Michael, then we are talking about princes. I posted the relevant scriptures in my original post above.

Michael is one of the foremost princes (as even the NWT translates). "One of" means that there are others.
I'm not arguing this. Both Michael and Jesus were both princes and spirit creatures. We are talking about the archangel over angels. That's the discussion.
Yes, but the fact that Michael is one of the chief princes, indicates that there is more than one chief prince. Christ, on the other hand, is the Prince OF princes. He is not one of the chief princes. He is the Prince OF princes. This (along with the other points made in my previous posts) show that Christ and Michael are two different persons. Michael (a prince, and one of the chief princes) is subordinate to Christ (the Prince OF princes).
tam wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
David wrote:You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel.
I did not agree to that (not in the way that you are using the word, angel. Angel means messenger, so as the Word of God, Christ could be described as an angel - but that would hold true for Him even as a man). I assume that you are using the word angel more along the sense of a spirit being (which both Christ and God are spirit beings, but you would not describe God as an angel. Well, Christ is as God is.)
I don't think this terribly relevant to the discussion, but it is such an excellent series of points you are making I have to address it. Where I've underlined your quote above I agree with. Jesus was an angel even as a man. As you've pointed out angel means messenger. When the word applies to a man in scripture it is rendered messenger, and when to a spirit creature it is rendered angel. Spirit creatures that have taken on the physical form can be referred to as angels, men, God and even Jehovah.

The portion of your quote I've applied bold text is an excellent point. Not that I didn't know it but I have never thought about it as such. For that I thank you.
I am glad these things resonated with you.

T
he part of your quote I've italicized I flat out disagree if you mean to imply the trinity.
I do not. I mean what Christ taught: that to see Him is to see the Father; to know Him is to know the Father. Not because He IS the Father, but because He is the IMAGE of God, and the perfect representation of God.

Know Christ, know God.

Christ - as the Son of God - is as God is.
You must have meant it in some other capacity but I have no idea why. In some ways Christ is as God is. In some ways Michael is. The meaning of the name itself asks the question. In some ways Satan is as God is and we are as God is, so I don't know what you are talking about.


No... Christ is not 'as God is in just some ways'. Christ is the PERFECT representation of God, the PERFECT image of God.

Since you had just made the point where God wasn't as Christ is (an angel) I can't even guess what you mean.
Once again, I do not claim that Christ is an angel. I simply distinguished the meaning of the word (messenger) from the manner in which most people use the word 'angel' to describe the spirit beings that are called angels (such as Michael or Gabriel or the Adversary and all the rest.)

tam wrote: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pmChrist taught that He is the Son of God. He never taught that He was Michael (or that he was one of the angels).

And Hebrews 1 speaks quite a bit about the Son as being separate and distinct from an angel.

An archangel (such as Michael) is still an angel.
David wrote:Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless.
A - I am not religious. I belong to no religion. I have faith and I am spiritual (we are to worship God in spirit and in truth).

B - I use the name my Lord showed me IS His name. How could the true name of Christ - the only name under heaven by which we will be saved - be pointless? How could using His name be pointless?

You may consider such things pointless, but I use my Lord's name as He showed me because a) it is the truth and the truth matters; b) His is the only name under heaven by which we will be saved, and c) out of love for Him. You don't learn someone's name and then refuse to use it.
One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
Jesus is not the English translation OR transliteration of Jaheshua (or even of Yeshua). My Lord came in the name of His Father (JAHVEH). His name has the name of His Father in it (JAH'eshua). Just as many of the prophets before Christ had the name (or title) of God in their name.

ELiJAH (my God is JAH)
EzekiEL
Jeremiah
Zekariah
Daniel
Israel

(even some of the above names would have had the name of God in them, but that has been lost, removed, perhaps due to the practice of Israel to not pronounce or write God's name)

Do you suppose the prophets would have the name of God in their names, but the One who came in the name of His Father, would not?

Jaheshua = Jah saves/savior of JAH

My Lord's name has meaning.

You will note though that I did not insist you or anyone else use anything. I simply spoke the truth as my Lord has taught me, and I use His name as He has shown me.


[sigh] I can take you to several scriptures where Jesus taught that he was one of the angels.
No you can't. You can take me to several scriptures where you are interpreting Christ's words to mean what you are saying. But so can anyone who teaches and accepts the trinity.

Neither you - nor they - can take me to a single teaching from Christ where He actually teaches what you are claiming.

There isn't one scripture where you can take me to Jesus correcting someone that his name was what you say it is.


Of course not. No one ever called Him, "Jesus". Why would there be a scripture of Christ correcting someone for calling Him a name that was never used until long after His death, resurrection, and ascension?

He and his followers spoke several languages, he had several names. English is Jesus.
Jesus is not the English transliteration (or translation) of Jaheshua (or even of Y'eshua). The closest english transliteration would be Joshua.

(you may or may not need this, but I found this to be a simple explanation on translation and transliteration. https://www.londontranslations.co.uk/fa ... anslation/ "Jesus" is neither a translation or a transliteration of my Lord's name.)
You can call him something else if you want and then you can justify that and meantime life outside goes on all around us. At the end of the day you have two options. Jesus was either Michael or a subordinate of Michael. The former is true, the later isn't.
How are these the only two options? You seem to be basing that conclusion on a couple of assumptions (both incorrect):

1- that there is only one archangel (and yet, Michael is one of the chief princes), and no one other than God can be above him

AND,

2- that Christ is a mere angel.
ETA: I was going to edit the last part about the name out, but I've decided to keep it and explain why. It isn't so much that I disagree with the name's meaning it's that I tend to bristle when that sort of interpretation is introduced in a way which seems to me more significant than it is in the context of the discussion. A prime example of this is people insisting on using Yahweh instead of Jehovah. You can get bogged down in a big discussion that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and most of the time the name is being used in some religious sense. Sometimes it is relevant but more often it reflects some trappings of ideology.
First thank you for making note that you edited something in!

Second, and I mean no offense, but I think you are the one 'bogging' us down with this. I simply stated what was true, and to clarify who my Lord is. If the name doesn't matter so much (to you), then why object to my using the name that was given me TO use? Might that be because the name actually DOES matter? The name of an angel or a human does not matter as much (although I have seen at least one occasion where someone who objected/mocked using the actual name of Christ, turned around and took great offense at a mispronunciation of his own name.) In fact, many of us correct people for mispronouncing our names, yet many shrug off the importance of the correct names of Christ and of God? The name of Christ and the name of God... these names matter.

So, it becomes Redundant. I'm frustrated lately because I don't have the time to do all that I want to do and it's showing in my limited participation. Especially on occasions I don't have time to address posts that I would really like to address. So there's little bits and pieces of me scattered here and there. You made some good points Tam, the fault is mine. I have to learn to adjust and for a while choose my battles carefully.
No worries at all. And it was certainly not my intention to derail your thread into another discussion simply by clarifying the name of my Lord. But I cannot use a name that is not true. (It doesn't even make sense to me to use a name that I know is untrue, for the One who is THE Truth.) So I clarify when I write or speak, because my Lord is Jaheshua (the Chosen One of JAH). He is the One I follow, He is the One I listen TO. He is the One who teaches me and who has promised to lead me (to lead His sheep) into all truth. (Would not His name count as something in that category - all truth?)


Peace again to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 18171
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 440 times
Been thanked: 674 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #16

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Overcomer wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:04 pm Let me start off by giving you a warning about JW sites and their arguments against the deity of Jesus Christ. They purposely lie and attempt to deceive their readers. They often do this by citing a Christian scholar, taking a statement he has made out of context, making it look like he agrees with the JW position when, in truth, he doesn’t. You can find this out by looking up the statement in context.

Here’s an example. A JW web site offers a statement about Daniel 12:1 from John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.
Do you have the source for the above (ie the JW website link that quotes Gill's) ? We only have ONE official website : www.jw.org , any other source are personal opinions of people that happen to be Jehovahs Witnesses, not the same thing. If you have an issue with an individual webmaster may I suggest you approach them, our society neither misquotes nor quotes author's out of context.


Thank you,



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
tigger 2
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 3:02 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #17

Post by tigger 2 »

Overcomer:
When I made the statement that only JWs believe Michael was Jesus, you asked me to re-read the OP. I did and I decided that I would address the list of people that you say agree with the JWs about that and the problems I have with their list.


T2: I answered his complaint about the list of those who stated that they (or others) believed Michael to be Christ in posts 9 and 10.

However, he didn't acknowledge his error in stating "only JWs believe Michael was Jesus." Complete references were given for the majority of those in the list he complained about (see post #9, parts in blue).

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #18

Post by WebersHome »

.
Acts 2:32 . . . God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

Were John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary to be questioned if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure you they would answer in the affirmative. However, they and the interviewer wouldn't be speaking the same language as the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go by the same name. In other words: the interviewer would soon find themselves thrown off by semantic double speak.

The classical Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ's dead, crucified body was restored to life as per John 2:19-22.

"Jesus said to them: Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Therefore the Jews said: This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days? But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said."

You see, if Jesus' dead, crucified body had not been restored to life, that entire passage would be easily proven false. But according to the Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's dead, crucified body didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watchtower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to relinquish his angel existence to become a human existence seeing as how in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a physical being simultaneously. However, when Michael expired, he didn't go completely out of existence. Instead, his so-called "life force" remained intact and was transferred to a human form.

"the transferal of the life of his firstborn Son from the spirit realm to earth. Only in this way could the child eventually born have retained identity as the same person who had resided in heaven as the Word." (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p.920)

"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watchtower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)

But Michael's existence as a physical being was only temporary. When his human form passed away on the cross, the Society claims that God transferred Michael's life force back into his angel form thus restoring him to his former spirit existence; leaving the corpse of his human existence in a permanent state of decease.


NOTE: The Society teaches that death terminates existence; but apparently not entirely because the Society also believes that at death, an angel's life force was transferred to another form-- in Michael's case, from a spirit form to a physical form; in effect, preserving a portion of Michael's existence so it could be re-transferred later when God went about restoring Michael to his former existence.

It could be argued that Jesus lives on in the body of an angel; but that wouldn't be true seeing as how Jesus' life force would've been Michael's to begin with.

The Society has to accept the obvious fact that their doctrine implies that Jesus Christ was never really fully human, rather, he was an amalgam of angel and human seeing as how it was the life force of an angel that kept Jesus' human body alive. In other words: the Society's Jesus wasn't an organic human in the normal sense, rather; he was an organic angel.


FYI: The Society maintains that Michael's crucified human form had to stay dead so he could be an angel again. But that's not the only reason the Society gives for keeping Michael's human remains perpetually deceased. An additional explanation is given on page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine; where it's stated:

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's altar."

There is a really, really big flaw in the Society's theology; and that's Michael's human remains. In order to confirm that his crucified human body stayed dead, the Society is going to have produce it. A piece of evidence of that significance can't be allowed to just slip through a crack unnoticed as if it makes no difference. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Till then, we should reckon that when the Bible speaks of Jesus Christ's resurrection, it's talking about a human corpse rather than an angel's.
_

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #19

Post by WebersHome »

.
Acts 1:1-3 . .The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all the things Jesus started both to do and to teach, until the day that he was taken up, after he had given commandment through holy spirit to the apostles whom he chose. To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered.

The Watchtower Society's version of those "positive proofs" is interesting.

In order to show his friends that their savior was back from death, the arch angel Michael is alleged to have materialized an artificial Jesus that was in all respects just as physical, and just as functional, as the real Jesus.

However:

1» The New Testament never even one time, on any occasion, nor under any circumstances, nor in any situation, either attests, alleges, alludes, or states that an angel named Michael appeared to Christ's disciples cloaked in a human avatar.

2» The Society's Michael never once let on to his friends that he was an angel in disguise. He led them to believe that his avatar was the actual Jesus Christ they all knew prior to his crucifixion.

3» Passing one's self off in the guise of a dead man is the lowest form of identity theft imaginable. It's what I expect from human beings, but that is not the kind of behavior I have a right to expect from an arch angel.

4» A so-called materialized body is a counterfeit.

5» Neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John, nor James, nor Jude, ever even one single instance in any of their writings identify Jesus Christ as an angel named Michael: not once. You'd think that if Jesus Christ is currently an angel who goes by the name of Michael, those men would have said so because that would be a really big deal.


FAQ: Why make an issue of the nature of Christ's resurrection?

A: Were I the Devil, I would do my utmost best to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ's crucified dead body because his crucifixion is only half enough to protect people from the wrath of God. Though his physical body's death obtains forgiveness for people's sins, its death doesn't gain exoneration.

Rom 4:25 . . He was delivered up for the sake of our trespasses, and was raised up for the sake of declaring us righteous.

The Greek word translated "righteous" is dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis) which means acquittal; defined as an adjudication of innocence.

People merely forgiven still carry a load of guilt; viz: they have a criminal record. Christ's physical resurrection deletes their record so that on the books, it's as though they've never been anything but 100% innocent.

This clearing of one's guilt that I'm talking about is obtained via the kindness and generosity of God through belief in the resurrection of Christ's crucified dead body. If the Devil can succeed in convincing people that Jesus' crucified body is still dead or, even better yet, make them question whether the man even existed at all; then they will fail to obtain an acquittal, and consequently end up put to death in brimstone because records are to be reviewed when people stand to face justice at the Great White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15.

Of all the doctrines invented by the Watchtower Society, I'd have to say that their resurrection story is the most insidious because belief in the recovery of Christ's corpse is one of the essential elements of the gospel that must be accepted if one is to have any chance at all of escaping the sum of all fears.

1Cor 15:17 . . Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless; you are yet in your sins.


NOTE: According to 1Cor 15:34, people that disbelieve Jesus Christ's corpse was restored to life aren't fully conscious; viz: they're like someone in a stupor; i.e. dazed.
_

User avatar
WebersHome
Guru
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #20

Post by WebersHome »

.
Jesus Christ is a priest-- not just a rank and file priest, rather: a high priest.

Heb 5:10 . . He has been specifically called by God a high priest

High priesthood is an office that's never been held by angels. It's always been held by human beings; specifically male human beings.

Heb 5:1 . . . For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in behalf of men over the things pertaining to God

Heb 5:4 . . Also, a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but only when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was.

Christ, then, is a mediator between the supreme being and the human being; specifically the mediator seeing as how the high priesthood is a solo position, i.e. held by one man at a time.

1Tim 2:5 . . There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.

The Greek word translated "men" and "man" in that verse is derived from anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) --a common word for humans in the New Testament; which is why that passage doesn't say the one mediator is an angel Christ Michael. No it doesn't say an angel Christ Michael; rather, it says a man Christ Jesus; who everyone knows to be a human being rather than an angelic being by the same name.

A search of the entire New Testament for the angel Michael turns up but two references: Jude 1:9 and Rev 12:7. That angel is nowhere in the gospels, nowhere in Acts, and nowhere in the epistles other than Jude. If that angel is so all-fired important; then why is it so marginalized? Even the Society itself is a bit perplexed as to why the name of an angel so highly revered in their theology is nigh unto absent in the New Testament.

The Society claims that the names Jesus and Michael are interchangeable; but that's the most ridiculous case of apples and oranges on record; not to mention a very serious case of identity fraud.

Even if an angel had once existed as a human being named Jesus; it no longer would. Now it would exist as an angelic being named Michael. The two names aren't interchangeable because the one name denotes a human being and the other name denotes an angelic being. Go ahead; search the New Testament and see how much luck you have finding somebody's name hyphenated like this: Jesus-Michael Christ.
_

Post Reply