Michael the Archangel, a characterization of Jesus in heaven?

[Eloi]

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, consider that Jesus is also the Archangel Michael. It is not just our belief, as many biblical scholars of other religious denominations have considered the matter in the same way.

Can this idea be demonstrated with the Bible? If that is not the case, the idea will not even be part of the Jehovah's Witness body of doctrines. In no way would we consider as belief something that did not have sufficient biblical support.

I would like to talk about that matter on this topic, as there is a lot of information that I would like to share about it. The subject of debate is: can it be demonstrated with the Bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? My answer is that you can do that, and in passing the topic I will try to prove it.

[tam]

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #49]

It does have significance, and I'm sad that you can't see it. Please just answer my question. It is not going around in circles. If you'd just answer, it would contribute to an interesting discussion.

I agree with the answer you gave to your question about that Matthew 24 passage.

So you agree that there is no other person than Jesus who will "stand up" for his people at the end of the Great Tribulation.....is that correct? Do you see that Michael and Jesus must be the same individual? Do you agree that there is no other person who has that privilege than Jesus?

.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #49]

It does have significance, and I'm sad that you can't see it. Please just answer my question. It is not going around in circles. If you'd just answer, it would contribute to an interesting discussion.

I agree with the answer you gave to your question about that Matthew 24 passage.

So you agree that there is no other person than Jesus who will "stand up" for his people at the end of the Great Tribulation.....is that correct? Do you see that Michael and Jesus must be the same individual? Do you agree that there is no other person who has that privilege than Jesus?

What I see, mostly differs from what you see.

I see Michael as an archangel, who can only be himself.

I do not not see Michael and Jesus being the same individual. That is an unbiblical concept that is illogical and confusing.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #49]

It does have significance, and I'm sad that you can't see it. Please just answer my question. It is not going around in circles. If you'd just answer, it would contribute to an interesting discussion.

I agree with the answer you gave to your question about that Matthew 24 passage.

So you agree that there is no other person than Jesus who will "stand up" for his people at the end of the Great Tribulation.....is that correct? Do you see that Michael and Jesus must be the same individual? Do you agree that there is no other person who has that privilege than Jesus?

What I see, mostly differs from what you see.

I see Michael as an archangel, who can only be himself.

I do not not see Michael and Jesus being the same individual. That is an unbiblical concept that is illogical and confusing.

It is logical. Michael apparently has the same privileges at Daniel 12:1 that Jesus has in the Christian Greek Scriptures. You cannot show me how those two show up at the same time when the Great Tribulation starts. Your concept is unbiblical. Michael does not stand up for his people, apparently, before the GT starts. No mention of him in the Gospels doing what Jesus is said to do. I have asked you to explain that but you haven't.

It logically stands to reason that Jesus Christ had a name other than "Jesus" before he came to Earth. Have you considered that? He wasn't always "Jesus." He got that name when he was born on Earth. So what was he called in heaven before his sojourn on the earth? Why not "Michael"?


.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #49]

It does have significance, and I'm sad that you can't see it. Please just answer my question. It is not going around in circles. If you'd just answer, it would contribute to an interesting discussion.

I agree with the answer you gave to your question about that Matthew 24 passage.

So you agree that there is no other person than Jesus who will "stand up" for his people at the end of the Great Tribulation.....is that correct? Do you see that Michael and Jesus must be the same individual? Do you agree that there is no other person who has that privilege than Jesus?

What I see, mostly differs from what you see.

I see Michael as an archangel, who can only be himself.

I do not not see Michael and Jesus being the same individual. That is an unbiblical concept that is illogical and confusing.

It is logical. Michael apparently has the same privileges at Daniel 12:1 that Jesus has in the Christian Greek Scriptures. You cannot show me how those two show up at the same time when the Great Tribulation starts. Your concept is unbiblical. Michael does not stand up for his people, apparently, before the GT starts. No mention of him in the Gospels doing what Jesus is said to do. I have asked you to explain that but you haven't.

It logically stands to reason that Jesus Christ had a name other than "Jesus" before he came to Earth. Have you considered that? He wasn't always "Jesus." He got that name when he was born on Earth. So what was he called in heaven before his sojourn on the earth? Why not "Michael"?

No Michael in the Gospels because he was not there.

If Jesus had another name before he came to earth, it was not Michael, but the Word, wasn't it?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #49]

It does have significance, and I'm sad that you can't see it. Please just answer my question. It is not going around in circles. If you'd just answer, it would contribute to an interesting discussion.

I agree with the answer you gave to your question about that Matthew 24 passage.

So you agree that there is no other person than Jesus who will "stand up" for his people at the end of the Great Tribulation.....is that correct? Do you see that Michael and Jesus must be the same individual? Do you agree that there is no other person who has that privilege than Jesus?

What I see, mostly differs from what you see.

I see Michael as an archangel, who can only be himself.

I do not not see Michael and Jesus being the same individual. That is an unbiblical concept that is illogical and confusing.

It is logical. Michael apparently has the same privileges at Daniel 12:1 that Jesus has in the Christian Greek Scriptures. You cannot show me how those two show up at the same time when the Great Tribulation starts. Your concept is unbiblical. Michael does not stand up for his people, apparently, before the GT starts. No mention of him in the Gospels doing what Jesus is said to do. I have asked you to explain that but you haven't.

It logically stands to reason that Jesus Christ had a name other than "Jesus" before he came to Earth. Have you considered that? He wasn't always "Jesus." He got that name when he was born on Earth. So what was he called in heaven before his sojourn on the earth? Why not "Michael"?

No Michael in the Gospels because he was not there.

If Jesus had another name before he came to earth, it was not Michael, but the Word, wasn't it?

Michael WOULD be in the Gospels IF he was a person different from Jesus.....that's my point. He "stood up" for his people at Daniel chapter 12. But he is nowhere to be seen in the Gospels. If he was a different person surely he would be mentioned, because in Daniel 12 he has the same eminence that Jesus has in Matthew 24.

("The Word" isn't a name. It's a title.)

[tam]

Peace to you,

Michael is mentioned in the NT, by name. Jude mentions both Christ and Michael. In the very same discussion, Jude refers to Christ and then to Michael. Two names, two persons. As well, both Christ and Michael are mentioned in Revelation, after Christ has ascended. Two names, two persons.



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

[onewithhim]

Peace to you,

Michael is mentioned in the NT, by name. Jude mentions both Christ and Michael. In the very same discussion, Jude refers to Christ and then to Michael. Two names, two persons. As well, both Christ and Michael are mentioned in Revelation, after Christ has ascended. Two names, two persons.



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

What you say has no bearing on the idea that Jesus and Michael are the same. When Jude speaks of Michael, it was BEFORE he was named Jesus that Michael disputed with the Devil, so he would naturally use Christ's name (Michael) when he was in heaven before coming to Earth as Jesus.

When Michael is spoken of in Revelation, it is AFTER Jesus went back to heaven and he cast the Devil out of heaven. The name "Jesus" was for Jesus' earthly sojourn. When back in heaven, he is Michael. Your argument doesn't hold up.

Two names, one person.

.

[tam]

[onewithhim]