Is Jesus Christ also Michael the Arch Angel ?

[Sinthesis]

tis not moramonism but the jws that call the christ micheal and archangel.

Wonderful, now I've slandered the Mormons.:splat

if the lord was but an archangel who then does one like smaller believe in the trinity when the lord is spoken off as being above the angels and an arc angel is still and angel.

and God is God and must be from everlasting and angles are created beings.

Smaller?

I agree that angels are created beings. However, the authority over the angels (archangel) need not be another angel anymore than the authority over sheepdogs need be another sheepdog, rather than the Good Shepherd Himself.

Dan 10:13 - "one of the chief princes"
Using Strong's it seems that "one of the chief princes" could easily be translated as "the only chief of the princes".

Dan 10:21 - "your prince"
Who do you think Daniel's prince is?

Dan 12:1 - "the great prince"
Compare how Michael and Gabriel are portrayed in scripture. It seems clear that Gabriel is not at the same rank as Michael. Michael is the "Archangel" just as Michael is also the "Great Prince". He is probably also "Captain of the host of the LORD".

 

[Oats]

Men are created beings, Jesus is a man !

yeah...about that

 

[jasoncran]

Wonderful, now I've slandered the Mormons.:splat

Smaller?

I agree that angels are created beings. However, the authority over the angels (archangel) need not be another angel anymore than the authority over sheepdogs need be another sheepdog, rather than the Good Shepherd Himself.

Dan 10:13 - "one of the chief princes"
Using Strong's it seems that "one of the chief princes" could easily be translated as "the only chief of the princes".

Dan 10:21 - "your prince"
Who do you think Daniel's prince is?

Dan 12:1 - "the great prince"
Compare how Michael and Gabriel are portrayed in scripture. It seems clear that Gabriel is not at the same rank as Michael. Michael is the "Archangel" just as Michael is also the "Great Prince". He is probably also "Captain of the host of the LORD".

but agian then why would micheal the archangel if he was the lord, need to say the lord rebuke thee to the devil when disputing the body of moses.

the lord when he was in the flesh and on this earth didnt say that to the devil rather he told the devil himself get the behind and the devil had to obey.

 

[savedbygrace57]

jason:

but agian then why would micheal the archangel if he was the lord, need to say the lord rebuke thee to the devil when disputing the body of moses.

Why would the LORD say to satan the Lord rebuke thee here in zech 3:

And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

 

[jasoncran]

read the next verse in jude nine where it says that the micheal darst not bring railing accustations agaisnt satan. that would imply that he didnt have the authority over the devil.

replace word the lord with jehovah or the tetragrammation and i bet it will be this

Yahweh rebukes thee
The Lord is used where the name of the Lord is.

 

[savedbygrace57]

More on Michael and the conflict !

Going back to rev 12:



7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Notice that it says in v7, Michael and His Angels ! This sounds quite similar to this Matt 13:41

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Matt 24:31

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Another Angel would not have His own Angels, the one exception is satan of course.

But what follows in rev 12:7ff is a dead give away to who Michael is by the work that is being attributed to Him and His Angels here !

He is victorious in a battle with the dragon, who is the devil which battle Jesus was victorious in the triumph of His cross, stripping and disarming Satan and his soldiers of all their authority col 2:


14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,[The Law or Body of Moses] which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

The cross was the purpose of all creation and history, and is when satan met with his defeat, when the seed of the woman bruised the serpents head gen 3 15, and rev 12:11 makes it clear that the contest that was won in the previous verses, was won by the blood of the Lamb, and vs 10 declares that as a result salvation has come, and also as a result of the conflict the Kingdom has come !

rev 12:

10And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Now understand, this is the fruit of the victory of Michael and His Angels over the devil and his angels vs 9

If further proof is needed that this battle pictured the triumph of the cross, and was won by Michael and His Angels, causing Satan's cast down, Jn 12:



31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. see rev 12:9

32And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

33This he said, signifying what death he should die.

The accuser of the brethren [ The OT saints], being cast down, this means the devil has no more grounds to accuse them [OT] saints before God, for now their sins are being actually blotted out of Gods sight, being actually paid for and taken away by the blood, hence, no one Christ died for can be held accountable eternally for their sins, because of the blood of Christ.

Now to delegate such a victory as this to an Angel which was not Divine and not Christ, is foolish, and shows a lack of spiritual discernment as to what actually happened in that conflict with Michael and His Angels against the dragon and his.

 

[savedbygrace57]

read the next verse in jude nine where it says that the micheal darst not bring railing accustations agaisnt satan. that would imply that he didnt have the authority over the devil.

replace word the lord with jehovah or the tetragrammation and i bet it will be this

Yahweh rebukes thee
The Lord is used where the name of the Lord is.

see post 24

 

[handy]

I agree, Jason, the language of Jude 9 certainly implies that Michael holds no authority over Satan. Jude 9 isn't comparable with...say, the temptation of Christ, where Jesus, with all authority, counters the Scripture Satan quotes with Scriptures. Jude 9 specifically states that Michael dared not pronounce judgment against Satan.

As for Jesus being Man, yep, that is right, He chose to humble Himself to become lower than the angels in order to do the will of the Father, but we are dealing with the time that He is not yet incarnate. And, point taken, His being the Angel of the Lord, also whilst not yet incarnate certainly shows that an angel can indeed be a Christophany.

But, I still am not convinced that Michael and the Angel of the Lord are one and the same. The Angel of the Lord is clearly Christophany. But, Michael? I don't think it's anywhere that clear.

As for Daniel 10:13, Sinthesis, I see where you are coming from, but no Bible version that I've seen translates it that way. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, and I know that simply picking up Strong's and plucking out the definition that best suits my arguments isn't necessarily the best way to use that excellent tool. Perhaps your Hebrew is better than mine, and you can explain why you think that the text should be interpreted as "the only chief of the princes", especially since none of the translators do.

To me, Daniel 10:21 is simply referring to the fact that Michael is archangel in charge of protecting Israel. This falls in line with Daniel 12:1 and with Exodus 23:20-23 where the Lord speaks of the angel that will lead Israel in the 3rd person.

Interesting study!!!!

And, Sinthesis, you can blame your inadvertent slandering of the Mormons on me...mea culpa!

 

[Sinthesis]

I'm no scholar. I once thought "Hebrew" was Jewish for "Man Beer". :
I do think it's interesting to look into various rabbit holes to see where they lead, secure in the belief that relevant truth will win out.

Jud 1:9 - Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.​

Look at various translations:

railing accusation
reviling accusation
accuse Satan of blasphemy
slanderous accusation
pronounce a blasphemous judgment
juicio de maldición
railing judgment
reviling judgment
evil-speaking judgment
abusive condemnation​

The reason the Archangel did not use a railing accusation is that it is not Christ-like. Instead He simply said the devil was wrong in the eyes of God. During the 40 days in the wilderness Jesus used scripture to show the devil his error. Why? Perhaps the meek shall inherit the Earth?

Daniel 10/11/12 never identifies the "man clothed in linen", but he isn't powerful enough to not have to call on Michael for help.

Exodus 23:20-23 are further obscured by Exodus 23:25.

 

[Free]

Men are created beings, Jesus is a man !

And this response is nullified by the fact you think Jesus was Michael.

 

[stovebolts]

Exodus 23:20-23 are further obscured by Exodus 23:25.

Hi Sinthesis,

The whole context is about restoring God's Kingdom on Earth and how God will accomplish this.

Regardless of who you view the angel in 23:20-23, it is clear that this angel will guide them to the place that God has prepared. Since we know the story, it isn't Moses who brings the people to the promised land, it is Joshua. Additionally, in Joshua 5:13-15 we see the angel God spoke about in Exodus 23. Thus, God's words are confirmed. Additionally, we hear the Angel echo what we've heard echoed in Exodus 3:5.

This bring us back to Exodus 23:25.

When we look at this entire segment of Scripture, what we see is a retelling of the Original story in genesis 1 and 2, and 3 is yet to come as the people, whom are called God's son (Exodus 4:22-23) journey forward through history.

You see, God claims for himself a people much like he did with Adam and Eve where he walked in their midst, and like the Garden of Eden, God has given them a land to dwell in. A land flowing with milk and honey. With this land, God will protect them and cause them to multiply as he commanded Adam and Eve to do. But more important, he will take them to the place he has prepared, which is shown by way of the Tabernacle where his name will dwell.

All these point to Christ, and our true home in heaven.

Ran out of time and won't be back till early next week.

Handy,
Sorry I didn't get a chance to address you're questions.

 

[jasoncran]

svbg57, did it ever occur to that the micheal the archangel kicked satan out of heaven ere the creation of men?

if micheal had that power to this day of over satan why then did he not remind satan about that.

the Lord can delegate his authority to micheal or any angel.

and you went from calvanism to the jw doctrine? that is what the jw says.

micheal the archangel must be god and recieve worship in order to be the son of god.

handy, when the lord came to the earth, he was both man and god. the hyperstatic union.

 

[savedbygrace57]

And this response is nullified by the fact you think Jesus was Michael.

No, it makes for a lame excuse, to say Michael is not Jesus because Michael is a created being, well guess what ? Jesus is a Man who is a created being, so that excuse is lame and thoughtless.

 

[savedbygrace57]

jason:

if micheal had that power to this day of over satan why then did he not remind satan about that.

Lame. Why did not the LORD remind Satan that He could rebuke him ? zech 3:

1And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

2And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan;

Why did not the LORD just say, I rebuke you satan ?

 

[Free]

No, it makes for a lame excuse, to say Michael is not Jesus because Michael is a created being, well guess what ? Jesus is a Man who is a created being, so that excuse is lame and thoughtless.

My point was that Jesus is obviously more than just a man, since you are arguing he is, or might be, Michael, who clearly existed prior to the birth of Jesus.

Regardless, taken in the context of the entirety of Scripture, we see that Jesus the Christ, the Word, is not a created being and therefore cannot be Michael.

 

[savedbygrace57]

My point was that Jesus is obviously more than just a man,

And He would be more than Just an Angel !

 

[Free]

And He would be more than Just an Angel !

Yes, that is my point. Therefore, he is not Michael.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Yes, that is my point. Therefore, he is not Michael.

Says what scripture ? If Jesus was a Man, He would be more than the ordinary Man, If He was a Messenger, more than the ordinary Messenger. So your point is mute, my point prevails.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Regardless, taken in the context of the entirety of Scripture, we see that Jesus the Christ, the Word, is not a created being and therefore cannot be Michael.

Jesus was Begotten, for it reads that He is the only begotten of the Father.

Is being begotten similar to being created ? In that they both mean being brought into existence.

Lets see. the word begt in the dictionary is:

1. To father; sire.
2. To cause to exist or occur; produce

The word create in the dictionary:

To cause to exist; bring into being. To give rise to; produce

Hmm, looks very similar to me !

 

[Free]

Says what scripture ? If Jesus was a Man, He would be more than the ordinary Man, If He was a Messenger, more than the ordinary Messenger. So your point is mute, my point prevails.

Huh? What makes him "more than the ordinary Man" and "more than the ordinary Messenger?"

Jesus is the God-man, not the God-archangel-man.