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.

[Eloi]

(...)
Heb. 1:5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?

So, the question: to which one of the angels
... and the answer: TO NONE OF THE ANGELS ... because that was said TO MEN about another man: Jesus.

Matt. 17:4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here (...)” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. Listen to him.” 6 At hearing this, the disciples fell facedown and became very much afraid.

(...) 'to none of the angels', but it was not to men that God said these words about another man. (...)

You are negating the Scriptures I just quoted.

Again: THAT WAS SAID:

To David, about his son Solomon:

2 Sam. 7:12 When your days come to an end and you are laid to rest with your forefathers, then I will raise up your offspring after you, your own son, and I will firmly establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my name, and I will firmly establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will become his father, and he will become my son. (...)

On Psal. 2:7 about the king in Jerusalem:

Psal. 2: 6 Saying: “I myself have installed my king
On Zion, my holy mountain.”
 7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah;
He said to me: “You are my son;
Today I have become your father.

On Mark 1:11 about Jesus, the man:

Mark 1:11 And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”

___________________________________________________________________________
(...)

Interesting ... how you delete the biblical quotes out of the post just to negate what the Scriptures say.

[Eloi]

(...) Both Michael and Christ are written about in Revelation. Both Michael and Christ are written about in Jude. These are two individual beings. (...)

The premise does not imply the conclusion.

In John 21:15-19, a passage of only five verses, the apostle Peter is called by three different names: Simon, Peter, and Simon Peter.

SO: your argument is invalid.

Jesus can be called like that, like "the Lamb", like the Christ, like Michael, like "the Son of God" or "the Son of man", like "the Logos of God", etc, and still be the very and same person.

[tam]

Peace to you,

(...)
Heb. 1:5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?

So, the question: to which one of the angels
... and the answer: TO NONE OF THE ANGELS ... because that was said TO MEN about another man: Jesus.

Matt. 17:4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here (...)” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. Listen to him.” 6 At hearing this, the disciples fell facedown and became very much afraid.

(...) 'to none of the angels', but it was not to men that God said these words about another man. (...)

You are negating the Scriptures I just quoted.

Those scriptures did nothing to show that Christ is Michael. So I did not quote them. Absolutely nothing I wrote negates those scriptures so you might be reading something more INTO the scriptures than is actually written.

Again: THAT WAS SAID:

To David, about his son Solomon:

2 Sam. 7:12 When your days come to an end and you are laid to rest with your forefathers, then I will raise up your offspring after you, your own son, and I will firmly establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my name, and I will firmly establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will become his father, and he will become my son. (...)

On Psal. 2:7 about the king in Jerusalem:

Psal. 2: 6 Saying: “I myself have installed my king
On Zion, my holy mountain.”
 7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah;
He said to me: “You are my son;
Today I have become your father.

On Mark 1:11 about Jesus, the man:

Mark 1:11 And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”

And what is your point?

___________________________________________________________________________
(...)

Interesting ... how you delete the biblical quotes out of the post just to negate what the Scriptures say.

Interesting how you avoided the point and the biblical verses that show those words "You are my son, today I have become your father..." WERE in fact said TO CHRIST.

Hebrews 5:5

So also Christ did not take upon Himself the glory of becoming a high priest, but He was called by the One who said to Him: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.”


Do you see?

God was not speaking to men about Christ; He was speaking directly to Christ. But NOT to angels (to which of the angels did God every say.......? Answer: to NONE of the angels). Instead God said that to His Son.




Peace again to you.

[Eloi]

(...)

Read the whole thread.

[tam]

Peace again to you,

(...) Both Michael and Christ are written about in Revelation. Both Michael and Christ are written about in Jude. These are two individual beings. (...)

The premise does not imply the conclusion.

In John 21:15-19, a passage of only five verses, the apostle Peter is called by three different names: Simon, Peter, and Simon Peter.

SO: your argument is invalid.

Jesus can be called like that, like "the Lamb", like the Christ, like Michael, like "the Son of God" or "the Son of man", like "the Logos of God", etc, and still be the very and same person.

My argument was not that someone cannot be called something else. You are jumping in the middle of a conversation but do not know the context. My argument went directly to the point that onewithhim was trying to make: that when Christ returned to heaven, He resumed His name "Michael" because that is who He is, but that is not correct. Both Michael and "Jesus" are spoken about in Revelation. Christ in fact refers to Himself by His name, Jaheshua (though written as "Jesus"). My argument also addressed her statement that Christ and Michael are never spoken of together in the gospels, and she seems to believe that is evidence that Christ is Michael, but Jude DOES in fact reference both persons in his very short letter. That works against the idea that Jude thought they were the same person.



Peace again to you.

[tam]

Peace,

(...)

Read the whole thread.

I did and responded. To this thread and to your other thread, and I provided links to yet another conversation on this very matter.


Peace again.

[Eloi]

Peace,

(...)

Read the whole thread.

I did and responded. To this thread and to your other thread, and I provided links to yet another conversation on this very matter.


Peace again.

If you are not interested in what I have said in the whole thread I opened, I am not interested in what you have to say.
Have a good one.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to tam in post #90]

You did not prove anything I said to be in error. We will have to agree to disagree, OK? You're not going to change your mind and neither am I.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Eloi in post #92]

Yes, and another name for Peter was "Cephas." It is not so far-fetched to know that Jesus can be known by more than one name.

I think the uproar over this issue is because people don't want to believe that Jesus is an archangel. Even though the Scriptures say that he was created.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Colossians 1:15)

"...These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God." (Revelation 3:14)

[Eloi]

We need some basic information to understand this topic.

The Greek word ἀρχάγγελος is made up of two parts. The first part is ἀρχ- which means Chief, Leader or Principal. The second part is "angel". The term alludes, therefore, to the Principal of an Army of angels.

We must bear in mind that although some religions have taught that there are several archangels, in the Bible in reality ONLY Michael is mentioned as such; in Jude 9 he is mentioned as "Michael the archangel" ... meaning he is the only one; and that would be logical, since the Heavenly Army of Angels should have only one at the head.

When the Bible mentioned "Michael the archangel" ... Does that indicate that there is only one archangel?

The definite article evidently delimits the predicate to specific individual/s, so it is reasonable to think that this expression appoint to only one Archangel, especially if the expression "Michael the archangel" has a pause after the name "Michael", and the archangel is considered to be the title of the previous named person, or how it is called in grammar an appositive.

IMO, that could be better expressed with a modern comma, like in "Michael, the archangel" but in Greek there were not punctuation like this and in translations it depends on the criteria of the translators and other aspects...

What does the term "archangel" means? Is Jesus the Archangel in heavens now?

Let's see how in the NT Jesus is described executing judgment with his angels; only in the Gospel according Matthew we have these declarations, as examples:

Matt. 13:41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen. (...) 49 That is how it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from among the righteous 50 and will cast them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be.

... 16:27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior.

... 24:31 And he [the Son of man] will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

... 25:31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

... 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels?