Michael the ArchAngle and Jesus

[twohumble]

How do JW's justify this theory? Scripture says much different, yet this is somehow offered as an explanation for Jesus? Please explain.

[NonTrinitarian]

The biggest resistance to Jesus being Michael the Archangel is the belief that Jesus is God. In fact, 99 out of a 100 times this is the sole argument for Jesus not being Michael. But since JW’s recognize that Jesus is God’s Son, not God Himself, this is not an issue for us. Now, IF your argument for Jesus NOT being Michael is because you think Jesus is God, we need to chunk this thread right now and go back and discuss whether Jesus is God. There’s no point moving forward if that is going to be your argument. Now, I’m not asking you to throw away your belief that Jesus is God, but rather, understand that if we take that assumption away, the following scriptures do seem to suggest Jesus is Michael.

The basis for our understanding Jesus is Michael is that many of the same things said of Michael are also said of Jesus. You could liken it to the many instances where something is said of God and then said of Jesus, causing you to conclude Jesus is God. Now you may think you see a double standard here but in reality you do not. Why do we think similarities between Jesus and Michael suggest he is Michael but similarities between Jesus and God do not mean Jesus is God? Mainly because we see too much counter evidence to Jesus being God. In other words, if we saw a number of scriptures that say Jesus is standing next to Michael; was sent my Michael or that Jesus sent Michael; that he gave Michael life; that Michael’s God was Jesus; etcetera, then we would not allow these similarities between Jesus and Michael to cause us to think he is Michael. But this is precisely what we see with Jesus and God. Thus, we have no real counter evidence that Jesus could not be Michael (other than a preconceived belief that he is God) to overturn the many similarities between the two. The first evidence is that both are said to take a position as King. Note Daniel 12:1
Michael rules as King:

“And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people”

What does it mean to “stand up” in the book of Daniel? Note earlier contexts in the previous chapter of Daniel:

And now what is truth I shall tell to you: “Look! There will yet be three kings standing up for Persia”-11:2

And a mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will-11:3



And one from the sprout of her roots will certainly stand up in his position, and he will come to the military force and come against the fortress of the king of the north and will certainly act against them and prevail-11:7

“And there must stand up in his position one who is causing an exactor to pass through the splendid kingdom, and in a few days he will be broken, but not in anger nor in warfare.”-11:20

“And there must stand up in his position one who is to be despised, and they will certainly not set upon him the dignity of [the] kingdom; and he will actually come in during a freedom from care and take hold of [the] kingdom by means of smoothness”-11:21

Note that in each of the instances to “stand up” meant someone taking authority as king. It is in this context that Michael is said to “stand up”. It would be very difficult to say that in these instance to “stand up” means to take action as the king but then a few verses later when Michael is said to “stand up” argue that it meant something other than his also standing up as king. According to Dan 11:40 this would happen in the time of the end. Thus, Michael is said to take authority as a king during the time of the end. The only other heavenly being said to be appointed king in Daniel is Jesus Christ, mentioned at Daniel 7:13,14.

When Michael becomes King, similar features happen that parallel Jesus.
Time of Distress when rules as king and book of life:

And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.

Note here that when Michael becomes King, a time of distress like no other will occur. This is the same thing Jesus said of himself.



for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. 22 In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short..-Matt 24:21,22

Note the similarities. And we also note that Jesus said there would be survivors, (but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short). This is the same thing said about Michael’s kingship.



And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.-Dan 12:1



These similarities cannot be coincidental. In fact, Jesus mentions the book of life as well at Rev 3:5

He that conquers will thus be arrayed in white outer garments; and I will by no means blot out his name from the book of life

Note another similarity between Michael’s kingship and Jesus’:


Judgement during kingship:
And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and] to indefinitely lasting abhorrence.-Dan 12:2

The resurrection would occur when Michael took action as King. His description rings similar to Jesus’:

Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.-John 5:28,29

Who's voice do they hear?
Again, the similarities cannot be brushed aside. And even more evidence is found at 1 Thess 4:15,16:

For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep ; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

Now compare these three verses (Dan 12:2, John 5:28,29 and 1 Thess 4:15,16)

1.) Michael becomes king and the resurrection happens

2.) Jesus says in the future the dead will “hear his voice” and come out of the grave

3.) The “voice” the dead hear is an “archangel’s voice”



It cannot be coincidence that an Archangel is involved in the resurrection in both Daniel and 1 Thessalonians. It cannot be shrugged off that the dead would hear “his voice” in John 5 and yet hear an “archangel’s voice” in 1 Thessalonians. (And as a side point, it seems strange that if Jesus was God or someone greater than an archangel that a voice of someone lesser than him is what would be heard as the call to resurrection in 1 Thess 4:15,16. People do come in the name of someone greater than themselves but where in the Bible do we ever see another example of someone greater coming in the name of someone lesser? If Jesus is not Michael and yet comes with a voice of someone less than his own authority it would be the only instance in scripture that I am aware of with such a phenomenon. There are many instances of someone coming in the name of someone greater but none of someone coming in the name of someone lesser.)

Insight and knowledge increase:
Continuing on we note more similarities when Michael stands up as king:

[i]3 “And the ones having insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse; and those who are bringing the many to righteousness, like the stars to time indefinite, even forever.-Dan 12:3

43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him that has ears listen.-Matt 13:43

Surely more than just coincidence.

Who leads the heavently armies and defeats Satan?
We also note that Jesus was the one prophesied to defeat Satan. (see Gen 3:15) But note who the Bible says does:

And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him-Rev 12:7-9



Michael and his angels are the ones who defeat Satan. Yet elsewhere in Revelation we know that Jesus is the one who is leading the heavenly armies.

And I saw the heaven opened, and, look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. 12 His eyes are a fiery flame, and upon his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, 13 and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God. 14 Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. 15 And out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. –Rev 19:11-16

Now would you not think it strange that if Michael is in fact someone less than Jesus that he would be the one leading the heavenly armies against Satan and his demons? Would Jesus have someone with less ability than him fight Satan while Jesus then goes and fights a far less superior army of mere humans? It would be borderline disgraceful. It would be like you having your wife go and fight a 300lb body builder while you beat up the body builder’s 5 year old daughter. The evidence suggests that it is Jesus himself, who has a heavenly name of Michael, who both leads the heavenly armies against Satan and his demons and the human armies.

These similarities are far too numerous to shrug off. It’s the same type of evidence Trinitarians use to prove Jesus is God. The only difference is we don’t see Jesus standing next to Michael or being spoken of as someone other than Michael so the effect is that much more convincing. Here is a brief summary

1.) Both have the term “archangel” applied to them: (Jude 9, 1 Thess 4:16)

2.) Both have authority over angels (Rev 12”7, 2 Thess 1:7)

3.) Both prophesied to defeat Satan (Rev 12:7, Gen 3:15)

4.) Both leading the heavenly armies (Rev 12:7, Rev 19:11-21)

5.) Both said to stand up as kings (Dan 12:1, Dan 7:14)

6.) Unprecedented time of distress when become king (Dan 12:1, Matt 24:21)

7.) Righteous in book of life would escape during that time (Dan 12:1, Matt 24:22)

8.) Resurrection would occur during their time (Dan 12:2, John 5:28,29)

9.) Voice people would hear would be Jesus’ (John 5:28,29)

10.) Voice people would hear would be an archangels (1 Thess 4:16)

11.) Judgment would occur during this time (Dan 12:2, John 5:28)

12.) Knowledge and insight would occur during this time (Dan 12:3, Matt 13:43)

[spl_cadet]

So what Church father believed that?

And what of these?

Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 8:58-59
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

John 10:30
"I and the Father are one."

[NonTrinitarian]

So what Church father believed that?As a Catholic you put much faith in what the "Church Fathers" thought. I'm not going to debate that issue other than to say that I don't put the same weight on their opinions as you do. To me they were moving in the direction of apostasy soon after the NT was written. But that is another thread not to be discussed here. But angel-christology was around very early. Note what The New Encyclopedia Brittanica says regarding this:

"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology whih had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century-namely, the so-called angel-christology. The descent of the Son to the Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of highest prince of angels, who became man in Christ Jesus; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In old angel-christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God."-Macropaedia, Volume 16, p. 282. (bold mine)
So the recognition of Jesus as being Michael has been around for a very long time. Even before Arius and the teaching of the Trinity.


And what of these?

Mark 14:61-64
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

John 8:58-59
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

John 10:30
"I and the Father are one."
Yes, this is what I stated in the opening paragraph that I would not discuss in this thread. The verses you present do not discuss specifically whether Jesus is Michael. They are for the discussion of whether Jesus is God. Go here to see all of your verses discussed along with a hundred or so verses from the Gospels you can answer in your spare time. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15883

[twohumble]

Nontrin:

The exegesis of some of your passages is dubious at the best. For instance 1 Thess 4:16 discusses " The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God...". This is a hearlding call, specifically announcing Christs arrival at the second coming. This is in no way applying the voice of Michael as to be the voice of Jesus. The rendering is confusing, I agree, but the context is one of announcing, rather than Jesus Himself "doing or saying anything". Instead, God trumpets His arrival, and His archangel announces His coming with a shout.

That aside, you still run into problems when Paul tells us no angel can be called the Son of God. There is this, and many other pointed verses specifically pointing away from any angel being equated with Jesus. How do you reconsile these verses?

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin:

The exegesis of some of your passages is dubious at the best. For instance 1 Thess 4:16 discusses " The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God...". This is a hearlding call, specifically announcing Christs arrival at the second coming. This is in no way applying the voice of Michael as to be the voice of Jesus. The rendering is confusing, I agree, but the context is one of announcing, rather than Jesus Himself "doing or saying anything". Instead, God trumpets His arrival, and His archangel announces His coming with a shout.Of course you dealt with just one of several areas of evidence but I do beleive even this one piece is quite powerful.

Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [Jesus' voice]and come out.-John 5:28

For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep ; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

Both accounts discuss the resurrection. One verse says it is Jesus' voice they will hear and the other verse says it is the archangel's voice. I can assure you that IF 1 Thess 4:16 had said "God's voice" instead of the archangel's you would use this same argument to show Jesus is God. You'd be saying 'See, it's Jesus' voice here in this verse but God's voice in this verse.' Unfortunately it says the archangel's rather than God's. And that coupled with Dan 12:1 where Michael's standing up as king signals the resurrection is pretty powerful, IMHO.

That aside, you still run into problems when Paul tells us no angel can be called the Son of God. There is this, and many other pointed verses specifically pointing away from any angel being equated with Jesus. How do you reconsile these verses?A fair question. One I will answer by quoting "Jesus-God or the Son of God" by Brian Holt-

After mentioning your argument Holt states,

The apostle Paul is speaking about Jesus and in light of these verses it is understandable why we may think Jesus could not be an angel. However, further examination of these verses shows they do not say Jesus could not be the archangel, Michael.

Paul’s separating Jesus from the angels does not mean that he is not himself and angel. What Paul is comparing is Jesus’ superiority as God’s only begotten Son to that of angels in general. That is, Jehovah did not arbitrarily pick an angel to whom He would subject the earth or place at His right hand and rule as king of His Kingdom. Paul is arguing that God picked one person specifically, his only-begotten Son, Jesus, to hold that position.

That separating Jesus from the angels is not an absolute separation can be seen by two scriptures in the same chapter, One of them is Hebrews 1:5, the verse in question. If we make an absolute separation in this verse we would have to conclude that angels are not God’s sons, yet the scriptures repeatedly show they are. (See Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 for a few examples) Thus, the separation is not that of Jesus being a son of God and the angels not being such. The point Paul is making is Jesus is not one of God’s sons in general, he is a special Son, his only-begotten. Just as Hebrews 1:5 cannot be used to prove angels are not sons of God, it cannot be used to prove Jesus could not be the archangel. Another example of not being able to make an absolute separation is found in the first two verses of Hebrews chapter 1. It reads, God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son.

This verse seems to separate Jesus from the prophets in such a way as to say that he could not have been a prophet. However, the scriptures will not allow such a conclusion… [Holt then discusses verses that call Jesus a prophet such as Deut 18:17,18, Acts 3:22, John 5:46)] Does this mean Jesus was just a prophet? No. As Paul said in Hebrews 1:2, Jesus was far more than a prophet in general, he was God’s Son. As we can see then, Paul’s comparison of Jesus to other prophets does not eliminate Jesus from being a prophet. Paul’s point was that God did not just use any prophet during the time of the end, He used his only-begotten Son…He is highlighting Jesus’ unique position over all others. Another example is found at Psalms 82:7 where God tells human kings, "[i]surely you will die just as men do." No one would read this and then conclude these kings God is speaking to were not human!

There is another important factor in Hebrews chapter 1 that helps us to round out the whole point of Paul’s argument. Hebrews 1:4 states: So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

Paul highlights a change in Jesus’ position that occurred after he came to the earth and died faithfully. Jesus has now been exalted and has become better than the angels. In what way did Jesus become better than the angels? In that he inherited a name more excellent than theirs. Paul then makes his argument regarding why such is the case. Not because Jesus was an angelic being already over the other angels, it was because he was the only-begotten son. It is in this capacity that the Earth was not subjected to an angel. It was subjected to the only-begotten Son of God who had been raised up over the angels. Once we examine closely the point Paul was making, we see that the book of Hebrews does not eliminate Jesus from being the archangel.Jesus is God’s only-begotten Son in the sense that he is the only creature brought into existence directly and solely by Jehovah. (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14) All other creatures were given life by Jehovah through Jesus and thus could not be said to be begotten by God only. It is only fitting that as Jehovah’s firstborn (He is also called the Firstborn of God in Hebrews) he be exalted above the other angelic sons of God. Thus, it is the office of being God’s only-begotten Son that earned Jesus the privileges he received and this is what Paul is highlighting. It no more means Jesus is not an angel than does Psalm 82 mean the kings who were called "sons of the most high" were not human.

And as a side point, many Trinitarians repeatedly refer to Jesus as an angel in the OT, believing he is the angel of the Lord who appears throughout the OT. Furthermore, there are actually a number of Trinitarians who also believe Jesus is Michael and argue that the term "angel" means messenger. Thus, they still hold Jesus to be God and part of the Trinity, while also being Michael the archangel. Search the web for "Michael the archangel" and Jesus and you will find their arguments for why they think Jesus is Michael. Of course I don’t agree with them when they say he is God.

[twohumble]

Of course you dealt with just one of several areas of evidence but I do beleive even this one piece is quite powerful.

Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [Jesus' voice]and come out.-John 5:28

For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

Both accounts discuss the resurrection. One verse says it is Jesus' voice they will hear and the other verse says it is the archangel's voice. I can assure you that IF 1 Thess 4:16 had said "God's voice" instead of the archangel's you would use this same argument to show Jesus is God. You'd be saying 'See, it's Jesus' voice here in this verse but God's voice in this verse.' Unfortunately it says the archangel's rather than God's. And that coupled with Dan 12:1 where Michael's standing up as king signals the resurrection is pretty powerful, IMHO.

A fair question. One I will answer by quoting "Jesus-God or the Son of God" by Brian Holt-

After mentioning your argument Holt states,

Jesus is God’s only-begotten Son in the sense that he is the only creature brought into existence directly and solely by Jehovah. (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14) All other creatures were given life by Jehovah through Jesus and thus could not be said to be begotten by God only. It is only fitting that as Jehovah’s firstborn (He is also called the Firstborn of God in Hebrews) he be exalted above the other angelic sons of God. Thus, it is the office of being God’s only-begotten Son that earned Jesus the privileges he received and this is what Paul is highlighting. It no more means Jesus is not an angel than does Psalm 82 mean the kings who were called "sons of the most high" were not human.

And as a side point, many Trinitarians repeatedly refer to Jesus as an angel in the OT, believing he is the angel of the Lord who appears throughout the OT. Furthermore, there are actually a number of Trinitarians who also believe Jesus is Michael and argue that the term "angel" means messenger. Thus, they still hold Jesus to be God and part of the Trinity, while also being Michael the archangel. Search the web for "Michael the archangel" and Jesus and you will find their arguments for why they think Jesus is Michael. Of course I don’t agree with them when they say he is God.


Non Trin

Certainly you are correct that I only responded to one of your "points", but then again, you seem to have copied and pasted or prepared a large response that would take more time than I have, to research and comment on. After reviewing it, there are some glaring inferences that seem based in an improper understanding of scripture (in my view), and the 1 Thess comment was used as an example.

Next you quote a passage in John that talks about Jesus's voice, and you equate that with the archangels announcement in 1 Thess. I again disagree with the inference that these refer to the same voice, or that 1 Thess in any way is a representation that the archangels voice is eminating from Jesus. As stated, it is an "announcement" from the archangel, as the trumpet announces the arrival of Christ. Nothing more can be infered from this passage.

Next you quote Brian Holt, who I do not hold at all to be authoritative and suggest you read the critique of his book here:
http://www.tektonics.org/holtb01.html

I believe you also run into problems with your theory that Jesus was the first creation of God and solely created by Him. Jesus was there "in the beginning" He is the alpha and the omega, and I would still love you to link me to Dee Dee's and your discussion of this issue.

The spurious claims that Hebrews 1 as a chapter in context, does not seperate Jesus from the angels seems to ignore the clear context and meaning. Any attempt to deny that this chapter clearly seperates Christ from the angels is an attempt to support faulty theology by more faulty theology. Christ is worshiped by the angels, and of the Son "He says, your throne , O God, is forever and ever....", whereas, the last vs in Hebrews explains the purpose of angels:

"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service......."

The Angels were not made to rule. If Jesus were an archangel, there was plenty of opportunity for the writter of Hebrews, and Paul, in his discussions, to make this point clear. They did not. Yet the did make clear distinctions between the angels and Christ. This alone should suffice to warrent an interpretation against Jesus being equated with "Michael".

[NonTrinitarian]

Non Trin

Certainly you are correct that I only responded to one of your "points", but then again, you seem to have copied and pasted or prepared a large response that would take more time than I have, to research and comment on. After reviewing it, there are some glaring inferences that seem based in an improper understanding of scripture (in my view), and the 1 Thess comment was used as an example. Well you asked for a discussion of this subject so I gave it. What did you think? That I had one verse to bring to the table?

Next you quote a passage in John that talks about Jesus's voice, and you equate that with the archangels announcement in 1 Thess. I again disagree with the inference that these refer to the same voice, or that 1 Thess in any way is a representation that the archangels voice is eminating from Jesus. As stated, it is an "announcement" from the archangel, as the trumpet announces the arrival of Christ. Nothing more can be infered from this passage. You're free to your opinion but here's the facts.
1.) When Michael stands as King there is a resurrection (Dan 12:1)
2.) Jesus said that at the resurrection his followers would hear his voice and come out of the grave (John 5:28)
3.) Paul says the voice the dead hear is an archangels voice and the resurrection would occur. (1 Thess 4:16)

And thus far your response has been 'nuh uh'. Hardly a convincing rebuttal. Trinitarians use much less references to prove Jesus is God than that. And I am 100% sure that if 1 Thess had said Jesus came with God's voice you would be screaming he is God. Am I wrong?

Next you quote Brian Holt, who I do not hold at all to be authoritative and suggest you read the critique of his book here:
http://www.tektonics.org/holtb01.html I read it and wasn't very impressed. It's the philosophical malarchy in it that Holt was addressing in his work in the first place. Since you haven't read Holt's book (and I doubt you actually read all of this review either) you really aren't in any position to say much of anything about it. Whether or not Holt is "authoritive" is pointless. He has as much right to offer an opinion as anyone else. Now if he was discussing Greek or Hebrew or something you might have a stronger reason to be concerned over his qualifications. But he's just offering an opinion and it's the opinion you need to address, not his "authority".

I believe you also run into problems with your theory that Jesus was the first creation of God and solely created by Him. Jesus was there "in the beginning" He is the alpha and the omega, and I would still love you to link me to Dee Dee's and your discussion of this issue.
This is off the subject. If you want to discuss if Jesus is God start another thread. I already provided this link in the other thread. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3024&page=7&pp=16


The spurious claims that Hebrews 1 as a chapter in context, does not seperate Jesus from the angels seems to ignore the clear context and meaning. Any attempt to deny that this chapter clearly seperates Christ from the angels is an attempt to support faulty theology by more faulty theology. Christ is worshiped by the angels, and of the Son "He says, your throne , O God, is forever and ever....", whereas, the last vs in Hebrews explains the purpose of angels:

"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service......."

The Angels were not made to rule. If Jesus were an archangel, there was plenty of opportunity for the writter of Hebrews, and Paul, in his discussions, to make this point clear. They did not. Yet the did make clear distinctions between the angels and Christ. This alone should suffice to warrent an interpretation against Jesus being equated with "Michael".
The context of Hebrew Chapter 1 is clear that Christ had to be elevated above the angels. Don't be so quick to skip over that point. And pay careful attention to verse 5 of chapter one where Jesus existed before he was addressed as God's Son. For a discussion of Heb 1:6,8, start another thread. As was demonstrated in Psalm 82:7, the language used at Hebrews is that of pointing out a role orposition Jesus has over others because he was "God's Firstborn" and has nothing to do with his nature any more than Ps 82:7 had to do with the nature of these human kings. In fact, according to Hebrews 1, the only reason Jesus has any authority over the angels is because God gave it to him. (see 1:9 and ask yourself who Jesus' partners were that God elevated him over. The answer is found in verse 4 where Jesus became better than the angels.)

I'll await your analysis and rebuttal of the rest of the arguments for Jesus being Michael.

[NonTrinitarian]

Is it just JW's that identify Jesus as Michael?
John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3,
page 2048 states:

"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate 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 Dnl."Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence at
Daniel 12:1:

"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.WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, stated
"There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--"William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158
From Brittanica.com:

"Here Arius joined an older tradition of Christology, which had already played a role in Rome in the early 2nd century--namely, the so-called angel-Christology. The descent of the Son to Earth was understood as the descent to Earth of the highest prince of the angels, who became man in Jesus Christ; he is to some extent identified with the angel prince Michael. In the old angel-Christology the concern is already expressed to preserve the oneness of God, the inviolable distinguishing mark of the Jewish and Christian faiths over against all paganism. The Son is not himself God, but as the highest of the created spiritual beings he is moved as close as possible to God. Arius joined this tradition with the same aim--i.e., defending the idea of the oneness of the Christian concept of God against all reproaches that Christianity introduces a new, more sublime form of polytheism."


A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical
Protestant outfit, says:

"Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos International, 1977), p. 35Regarding the occurence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist
commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked:

"By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).LANGE"S COMMENTARY calls the figure here(Rev 12:7-10) "the warlike form of Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, s.v. Rev. 12:7

AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of
Michael: "It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scrranton Co., vol. 6, p.882

Matthew Henry Commentary:

Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation. Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments. Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary.
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.John Wesley:

Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the finnal judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming. Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it. Geneva Study Bible:

Da 12:1
12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel. Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels. "The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves." —Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).

"Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and
they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26,
28, 29. Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133

"the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the 'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an archangel,s and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the PostApostolic Logos-Christology appear in a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common presupposition." In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century:

In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.

This work is entitles "Bible Doctrine of God" by William Kinkade. Interesting reading and scroll down to the bottom for what he says regarding Hebrews 1:5.

The word Michael signifies that which is like, or as God. The word archangel is composed of two Greek words, namely, arche, a head; and angelos, a messenger. The title Michael, the archangel, literally signifies the head messenger that is like God. This must be Jesus Christ, because we all acknowledge that he is the image of God, and the head messenger that was ever sent into our world. I have often heard preachers speaking of archangels in the plural, but in scripture the word is always mentioned in the singular, with the definite article the before it, by which one particular personage is denoted. In fact there can be but one archangel; that is, one head messenger, and who would dare to say that Jesus Christ is not the head messenger? If Christ is a messenger he is an angel. If he is the head messenger he is the archangel. If he is like God he is Michael, therefore he must be Michael the archangel. I think that every candid person that knows the meaning of these words will agree with me on this point. The New Testament informs us that Jesus Christ will preside at the judgment of the last day. Thus we read, "Because he hath appointed a day, in the [sic] which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17:31 "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." (John 5:22.) [See also Matt. 25:31-34.] But the following passage shows that Michael will preside in the day of judgment: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of they people: and there shall be a time of trouble, which as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan. 12:1,2.) Some people have argued that this text does not refer to the day of judgment, because it says: "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake." This text might be more literally translated: "The multitudes that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake." But as it stands it sufficiently proves that Michael will stand up to deliver all God’s people who are written in the book, at the time when those who sleep in the dust of the earth sahll awake, some to everlasting life, an dsome to shame and everlasting contempt. The angel Gabriel said to Daniel: "I will show thee that which is noted in scriptures of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael, your prince." (Dan. 10:21) In the thirteenth verse of this chapter Gabriel says: "The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one [Hebrew, ahed, the first] of the chief princes, came to help me." The word which is here rendered one is the same Hebrew word which is translated first in the first chapter of Genesis, where he says the evening and the morning were the first day. Some people contend that Michael was a temporal prince, namely, Cyrus; but I think they are mistaken, because Michael was not his proper name, and I do not think he was enough like God to deserve that name as an honorary title. Besides, it appears this Michael was an associate of the angel Gabriel; and there is no probability that Cyrus will stand up to deliver God’s people when the multitudes, or even many of them, that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt. We are informed, in Deuteronomy 34:5, 6, that "Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day." Jude says, 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." (Jude 9.) Now, if the Lord buried the body of Moses, and if Michael, the archangel, took cae of the body of Moses, then the titles Lord, and Michael, the archangel, are only different titles, or names, given to the same person. In this dispute Michael said to the devil, "The Lord rebuke thee;" which are the same words the Lord used to rebuke him in the third chapter of Zechariah, from the first to the fourth verses: "And he showed me Joshua, the high-priest, standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 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? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unot those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee." Here the very Lord that cleansed Joshua from iniquity is called an angel. If this lord-angel is not the Lord Jesus, who can he be? That Jesus Christ commands armies of heaven appears from the following scripture: "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. . . And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Rev. 19:13, 14, 16.) But it appears from Revelation 12:7 that Michael commands the armies of heaven: "An d there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his angels." In the ninth verse of this chapter we are informed that the dragon is the devil, and Satan, and that Michael and his angels cast him and his angels out of heaven; and in the tenth verse this victory is ascribed to Christ; hence the exclamation, "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." To me this evidence proves beyond reasonable dispute that Michael is one of the names of Christ; because if the church is the seat of this war, and if Christ is the Captain of our salvation and the leader of his people, he must be the person who is here mentioned under the name of Michael. Paul says, "For the lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first." (1 Thess. 4: 16.) From this text it appears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout his voice will be that of the archangel, or head messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. . . . Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming in the [sic] which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:25, 28, 29.) I am not alone in this opinion; most of the principal writers of the Trinitarians school have advocated the same doctrine. Brown’s Dictionary of the Bible, on the words Michael and angel, says that both these words do some times refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the archangel. Wood’s Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown’s does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, under the article angel, asserts that Christ is, in scripture, frequently called an angel. Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor, in their concordances, assert that Michael and angel are both names of Christ. Docter Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an angel. [See his notes on that passage where the angel of the Lord spoke to the people at Bochim.] Winchester has taught the same doctrine, on page 152 of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where the Lord appeared to the patriarchs under the character of an angel, as referring to Jesus Christ. Bunyan makes his pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed Michael helped me." [Pilgrim’s Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54.] Guyse, in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Revelation 12:7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion. Doctor Watts, in his Glories of Christ, pages 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Watts, Dodridge, and some others have called this angel of the covenant, or angel of God’s presence, Christ’s human soul, whom they think was the first being that God ever created. I agree with them that Christ is the first being that God created; but I can not see the propriety of calling the pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans, but existed before the human family was created. Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ; and also asserts that Michael the archangel is Jesus Christ. [See Scott'’ Bible on Genesis 16: 9, 10; Genesis 18: throughout; Exodus 3:2-7; Judges 2:1-5; Daniel 10:13, 21; Daniel 12:1; Revelation 12:7.] The American Tract Society Bible Dictionary states: "So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant."

The Godbey Commentary on the NT volume 1 page 85: "In this graphic description of the war in heaven, Dr. Clarke (as in Daniel 12:1) identifies Michael with Christ. "The Angel of the Covenant," so frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, is believed be the excarnate Christ." Later, on page 87, the following is stated: "Christ was the Michael who then led the embattled host to victory in the ejectment of Satan and all of his followers out of the celestial worlds."

E.W. Hengstenberg, in his Christologie des Alten Testaments und Kommentar uber die messianischen Weissagungen, Bd. iii. 2 Aufl. 1857 identifies the archangel Michael with the Logos-Christ.

I could mention many other writers who have advocated this doctrine, but these are sufficient to prove that it has long been believed among the most eminent Trinitarians. I forbear to quote the words of all these authors on the subject, because it would swell this work unnecessarily; and as those books are very common, the reader can examine them for himself. <B>Little did many of these great and good men think that when they were teaching that Christ is an angel, that he is the angel of the covenant, the angel of God’s presence, and Michael the archangel, they were thereby undermining Trinitarianism;</B> yet they actually were, because if he was the angel of God, and, as Moses says, the angel that God sent to bring the Jews out of Egypt, he can not be God in the highest sense of the word. As the text which says Melchisedec was the priest of the most high God proves that Melchisedec was not the most high God, so the passages which say Christ is the angel of God prove that he can not be that God whose angel or messenger he is. It will not do to say that Christ, in his pre-existent state, was only distinct from, and inferior to, God in his humanity, while in his divinity he was equal with him, because his humanity was not then in existence. This doctrine is as fatal to Socinianism as it is to Trinitarianism, because if Christ is the angel of the covenant, who spoke with Moses in the mount, and buried him when he died, he must have existed before he was born of the Virgin Mary.
I have heard but two texts of Scripture brought to disprove this doctrine. One is, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (Heb. 2:16.) As the word nature, in this text, is wanting in the Greek, it proves nothing about the nature of Christ. In fact the word angel simply signifies a messenger, and never denotes nature, but is always significant of office. Every messenger that ever existed in heaven, earth, or hell was an angel. Christ is called a messenger in Isaiah 42:19: "Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent?" [See also Malachi 3:1,2.] [A] text that I have heard urged to prove that Christ never was an angel, is Hebrews 1:5: "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" Although this text abundantly proves that Christ is exalted above all other messengers, it by no means proves that he was never a messenger himself. If I should say of General Washington that he was made superior to all the offers of the Revolutionary army—for to which of the officers said Congress at any time, Thou shalt be commander-in-chief? And again, when they brought him into the army they said, Let all the officers obey him, and of the officers it is said that the government gave them commission and appoointed them wages, but to Washington it said, Thou hast loved thy country and hated treachery, therefore the government, even thy government, hath exalted thee to honor and office above they fellows—such conversation would go just about as far to prove that I thought Washington never was an officer in the army of the Revolution as the first chapter of Hebrews goes to prove that Christ never was a messenger of God. In fact, the above text, taken in its connection, goes rather to prove than to disprove that he is one of God’s angels, or messengers, because the writer, after speaking of him in connection with the angels several times, finally asserts that he was anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, by which he must mean his fellow messengers, for there are no others mentioned in the connection.The drift of the writer in the first chapter of Hebrews was not to show that Christ was not a messenger, but to show that he was made greater than all the messengers of God; therefore when the above text is brought to prove that Christ never was an angel, that is, a messenger of God, it is pressed into a service for which it was never designed by the writer.I don’t have the sources he is referencing so I cannot verify them. But as you can see, there are a number of people, many who are Trinitarians, who believe Michael is Jesus.

PS-Sorry about the fonts. I don't know what's going on with that.

[twohumble]

Well you asked for a discussion of this subject so I gave it. What did you think? That I had one verse to bring to the table?
No, I am fine with you giving a dissertation, but you made a point that I only responded to one of your reasons, and of course, given the length of your reply, it seems unreasonable to assume I had the time or inclination to research each and every claim you made in that lengthy post. I started with one issue. Realize that I do most of this in my spare time between pts, or at home between kids and wife. I really will not devote "research quality" time to these issues, but will discuss them and read up on them as time permits.

You're free to your opinion but here's the facts.
1.) When Michael stands as King there is a resurrection (Dan 12:1)
2.) Jesus said that at the resurrection his followers would hear his voice and come out of the grave (John 5:28)
3.) Paul says the voice the dead hear is an archangels voice and the resurrection would occur. (1 Thess 4:16)

Well, just be careful that your opinion is not masqurading as fact.
1. My translations say "prince" not "King" for Danial 12:1...so clearly this is not a "fact".
2. the fact that John 5:28 says this, in no way equates to the archangels voice. This is opinion, and not fact.
3. Again you have inferred fact to what is clearly your opinion. It says the resurrection will occur in Christ, but you are adding in the voice of the hearld archangels voice as if it were Christs. This passage does not clearly say this, and its my opinion, that it does not.



I read it and wasn't very impressed. It's the philosophical malarchy in it that Holt was addressing in his work in the first place. Since you haven't read Holt's book (and I doubt you actually read all of this review either) you really aren't in any position to say much of anything about it. Whether or not Holt is "authoritive" is pointless. He has as much right to offer an opinion as anyone else. Now if he was discussing Greek or Hebrew or something you might have a stronger reason to be concerned over his qualifications. But he's just offering an opinion and it's the opinion you need to address, not his "authority".

You offered Holt as an authority with which you answered my question. He is not an authority, and his answer is nothing more than another JW opinion. I was simply pointing out that if you are going to quote anothers opinion that has no authority, I may choose to disregard it as nothing more than JW opinion. In regard to addressing his opinion, I see that he has pyrimided inferences to come to what I see as an illogical conclusion. That of course, is just my opinion. I think JP Holding did a nice job in his critique of Holts' position.

This is off the subject. If you want to discuss if Jesus is God start another thread. I already provided this link in the other thread. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3024&page=7&pp=16

You initially only provided me with the rebuttal you gave to Dee Dee, then she responded asking you to post it under her original, and I asked you to tell me where that original was. You had not repsonded until now...I hope this is the original Dee Dee thread, so I can follow it, and I am not asking you to discuss it in this thread.





I'll await your analysis and rebuttal of the rest of the arguments for Jesus being Michael.

Yes, you have many points that should take quite some time to "rebut" or discuss. I am sure this won't happen overnight, as my schedule is going to be pretty busy through the holiday week, and shortly after. I will address it in small bites as time permits.

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, just be careful that your opinion is not masqurading as fact.

1. My translations say "prince" not "King" for Danial 12:1...so clearly this is not a "fact".True, King doesn't appear in the sentence and I never used that argument to state he was king. The point of his being king is found by his "standing up" compared to the other instances of people standing up in the previous verses of Daniel. But I'll grant it is not a fact to you that Michael is acting as a king.

2. the fact that John 5:28 says this, in no way equates to the archangels voice. This is opinion, and not fact.And in that sentence I never equated it to the archangels voice. I just said it was a fact that Jesus said the dead would hear his voice. That's not an opinion.

3. Again you have inferred fact to what is clearly your opinion. It says the resurrection will occur in Christ, but you are adding in the voice of the hearld archangels voice as if it were Christs. This passage does not clearly say this, and its my opinion, that it does not. No, I didn't say the voice was Christ's in my fact statement. I said this:

"3.) Paul says the voice the dead hear is an "archangels voice" and the resurrection would occur. (1 Thess 4:16)" What part of that is not fact?

You offered Holt as an authority with which you answered my question. He is not an authority, and his answer is nothing more than another JW opinion. I was simply pointing out that if you are going to quote anothers opinion that has no authority, I may choose to disregard it as nothing more than JW opinion. In regard to addressing his opinion, I see that he has pyrimided inferences to come to what I see as an illogical conclusion. That of course, is just my opinion. I think JP Holding did a nice job in his critique of Holts' position.And nothing you offer is anything more than the opinion of a Trinitarian. Deal with what he says. What makes a person an "authority"? God's spirit, nothing else. Holt isn't telling you anything about history, language, culture or anything else that requires some special authority. He's simply diagnosing the verse as do other people, including you. If you only want to go by some un-disclaimed measure of authority then I won't deal with any of your comments because what authority do you have?

BTW, JP Holding is not the one who critiqued Holt. He just posted the critique on his website. I think the guy that critiqued it is a catholic. And Holt's comments are the same way I feel. So if you don't want to deal with them then why bother having this thread? Much of what I have written you has come from his book.
You initially only provided me with the rebuttal you gave to Dee Dee, then she responded asking you to post it under her original, and I asked you to tell me where that original was. You had not repsonded until now...I hope this is the original Dee Dee thread, so I can follow it, and I am not asking you to discuss it in this thread.This is the same link I posted in the other thread. I posted it to another poster but I assumed you read it. Perhaps not. It is the complete discussion. I also want to point your attention to the sources I provided above about Michael. These people might be viewed by you as ones having "authority."

[twohumble]

NonTrin
I am going to be out of computer touch for a bit, and any time on it will be brief. You listed some great quotes from 'protestant' sources that I must research and read up on.

I will say that there was a sect of Jewish followers that did hold Michael to be the future ruler, and it seems through the book of Hebrews that the author goes out of his way to dispell this false teaching. The author of Hebrews seems to consistently warn us against the idea that any angel would hold such a position. I have read a number of commentaries that suggest this, and from my own reading of the text, it seems clear that the author is warning againts this very teaching.

Your reference quotes are interesting, and I will look forward to reading up on it and commenting on them in the future.

Thank you for posting the A&O thread, it was very interesting and well covered. You are correct in saying that there is no need to add to it.

[NonTrinitarian]

NonTrin
I am going to be out of computer touch for a bit, and any time on it will be brief. You listed some great quotes from 'protestant' sources that I must research and read up on.

I will say that there was a sect of Jewish followers that did hold Michael to be the future ruler, and it seems through the book of Hebrews that the author goes out of his way to dispell this false teaching. The author of Hebrews seems to consistently warn us against the idea that any angel would hold such a position. I have read a number of commentaries that suggest this, and from my own reading of the text, it seems clear that the author is warning againts this very teaching.

Your reference quotes are interesting, and I will look forward to reading up on it and commenting on them in the future.

Thank you for posting the A&O thread, it was very interesting and well covered. You are correct in saying that there is no need to add to it.
No problem. Take your time. In regards to Hebrews, there were sects that were involved with angel worship and I beleive this is what Hebrews is addressing. Perhaps even John was influenced by this when he bowed to an angel in Revelation (not accusing him, just a possibility). So I don't think he was specifically addressing Michael or trying to dispel misunderstandings regarding Daniel 12. If he was specifically dealing with Michael and the prophecies in Daniel 12 I think he would have been more direct and probably even offered an explanation. Thus, I believe it was angel worship rather than trying to prove Jesus was not the chief of the angels. (And note that someone can be "chief" of the angels without being an angel).

[Leroy]

If the Archangel Michael is Jesus, why didn’t he bring judgment onto Satan?

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Jesus clearly has authority to rebuke Satan.:huh:

Then Jesus *said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' "


Why did Michael refuse to rebuke Satan in Jude when Jesus clearly did so in Matthew? :shrug:




The Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is the first and greatest creation of God, and if Jesus was Michael before becoming a man why does Dan 10:13 refer to Michael as one of the chief princes, implying equity to the other angels? :huh:

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.



If Christ was Michael the Archangel before the incarnation, then became Jesus, then changed back to Michael after death what do you think Heb. 13:8 really means? :dizzy:

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.




In Colossians talking about Jesus it says;
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

If Jesus were Michael at the time of creation would an angel create all things for himself? :lolo:





If Jesus was Michael before his birth how do you explain this verse in Hebrews?

But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?



If Jesus Christ is Michael how can you explain this?

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

All the angels would include Michael, did he return with himself? :lolo:

Upon his resurrection, when Jesus became Michael the Archangel again, why didn’t any of the New Testament writers refer to the resurrected Christ by his name “Michael”? :doh:

Can you point out one verse that says Jesus and Michael are the same?

[NonTrinitarian]

If the Archangel Michael is Jesus, why didn’t he bring judgment onto Satan?

Jude 1:9

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"



Jesus clearly has authority to rebuke Satan.file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif

Matt. 4:10

Then Jesus *said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' "




Why did Michael refuse to rebuke Satan in Jude when Jesus clearly did so in Matthew? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image002.gif
First of all, it is debatable that Jesus’ words of ‘go away Satan’ are the same type of rebuke that Jude is talking about. What you’re leaving out is the element of time. That is, Michael was not the Messiah when he was arguing with Satan about Moses’ body so it was not time for him to act in that capacity. However, Jesus, once he was the Messiah, could take the action he was then assigned to do. For instance, note that Jesus did NOT cleanse the temples or condemn the Pharisees until AFTER his baptism and public ministry. (Also, see 1 Peter 2:23) That the element of time is not considered in your argument is further evident is that you ignore Revelation 12. In that chapter we see Michael doing more than rebuking Satan; we see him casting Satan down to the Earth. So much for the theory that Michael wouldn’t rebuke Satan! Michael’s time to act against Satan was not appointed when arguing about Moses’ body. Jesus’ time to act against the Pharisees was not appointed until after his baptism. Instead of focusing on one verse, you ought to consider the whole Bible. By comparing Jude with Revelation 12 you would have seen the fallacy of your argument.

The Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is the first and greatest creation of God, and if Jesus was Michael before becoming a man why does Dan 10:13 refer to Michael as one of the chief princes, implying equity to the other angels? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif

Dan 10:13

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.


It doesn’t have to imply equity. You just wish it would so you assume it does. Michael can still be in a class of “foremost princes” and still be higher than the others in the class of foremost princes. The class they all fit into is that of being created (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14). Since no other archangels are mentioned and it is Michael “and HIS angels” that defeat Satan, it is reasonable he is the highest of all the angels.

If Christ was Michael the Archangel before the incarnation, then became Jesus, then changed back to Michael after death what do you think Heb. 13:8 really means? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image003.gif

Heb. 13:8

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.


If Jesus was God before he came to the Earth; gave up his godly prerogatives and then became God again after his death; what do you think Heb 13:8 really means?

In Colossians talking about Jesus it says;

Col. 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:



If Jesus were Michael at the time of creation would an angel create all things for himself? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image004.gif Since the preceding verse says he was “the firstborn of all creation” then I see no issue with his Father allowing him to use His power to create other creatures. God certainly didn’t have problem with Jesus using His power to heal people while he was on Earth.


If Jesus was Michael before his birth how do you explain this verse in Hebrews?

Heb 1:13

But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?


This was explained in my first post. Go back and read it.


If Jesus Christ is Michael how can you explain this?

Mat. 25:31

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:



All the angels would include Michael, did he return with himself? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image004.gif Rather than embarrass you with a straight answer, why don’t you ask yourself these questions:

1.)Is there any verse(s) in the Bible that says something like ‘Moses and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…?’

2.)If there is, does this mean Moses is not a man of Israel? (and feel free to replace the term Moses with Joshua, Gideon, so on and so forth.)

3.)Does this mean Moses (or a dozen other names) called HIMSELF to gather together?

I won’t embarrass you any more by pursuing this argument. (IE, I’ll forget you ever mentioned it)

Upon his resurrection, when Jesus became Michael the Archangel again, why didn’t any of the New Testament writers refer to the resurrected Christ by his name “Michael”? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image005.gif

Can you point out one verse that says Jesus and Michael are the same?

I think they did in Revelation 12. I considered a number of verses in my first post that show Jesus and Michael are the same. What you have failed to do is show one verse that shows that Jesus and Michael are different. Want me to show you about four hundred verses that show that Jesus and God are different?

[Leroy]

If the Archangel Michael is Jesus, why didn’t he bring judgment onto Satan?

Jude 1:9

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"



Jesus clearly has authority to rebuke Satan.

Matt. 4:10

Then Jesus *said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' "




Why did Michael refuse to rebuke Satan in Jude when Jesus clearly did so in Matthew?



First of all, it is debatable that Jesus’ words of ‘go away Satan’ are the same type of rebuke that Jude is talking about.

“Go away Satan” would have worked in both cases.


What you’re leaving out is the element of time. That is, Michael was not the Messiah when he was arguing with Satan about Moses’ body…

That’s obvious!


…so it was not time for him to act in that capacity.

What time did this argument over Moses’ body actual take place?


However, Jesus, once he was the Messiah, could take the action he was then assigned to do. For instance, note that Jesus did NOT cleanse the temples or condemn the Pharisees until AFTER his baptism and public ministry. (Also, see 1 Peter 2:23)

Are you trying to claim the Jesus didn’t have the capacity to act in His “savior capacity” until he was baptized? If your trying to claim that then why pick the point of baptism, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to pick His death on the cross? That is when He actually completed his work of salvation?


That the element of time is not considered in your argument is further evident is that you ignore Revelation 12. In that chapter we see Michael doing more than rebuking Satan; we see him casting Satan down to the Earth. So much for the theory that Michael wouldn’t rebuke Satan!


Theory, what theory? I presented you with an actual verse, Jude 1:9. Michael did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
read it again.


Michael’s time to act against Satan was not appointed when arguing about Moses’ body.

And at what actual time did this argument over Moses’ body take place?


Jesus’ time to act against the Pharisees was not appointed until after his baptism. Instead of focusing on one verse, you ought to consider the whole Bible.

Is this just conjecture or do you have verses to back up this specific statement?


By comparing Jude with Revelation 12 you would have seen the fallacy of your argument.

What fallacy, the fallacy of proper hermeneutics?




The Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is the first and greatest creation of God, and if Jesus was Michael before becoming a man why does Dan 10:13 refer to Michael as one of the chief princes, implying equity to the other angels?

Dan 10:13

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.





It doesn’t have to imply equity. You just wish it would so you assume it does.

I does imply equity, “: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes,”


Michael can still be in a class of “foremost princes” and still be higher than the others in the class of foremost princes.

Then why didn’t it say” but, lo, Michael the Highest chief prince the only Begotten of the Father” That statement would not imply equity.


The class they all fit into is that of being created (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14). Since no other archangels are mentioned and it is Michael “and HIS angels” that defeat Satan, it is reasonable he is the highest of all the angels.

Michael just might be, I don’t have a problem with that, Jesus on the other hand can’t be lumped into this category


For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Jesus is the only Begotten Son, no claim of equity there, it’s crystal clear “only Begotten”




If Christ was Michael the Archangel before the incarnation, then became Jesus, then changed back to Michael after death what do you think Heb. 13:8 really means?

Heb. 13:8

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.






If Jesus was God before he came to the Earth; gave up his godly prerogatives and then became God again after his death; what do you think Heb 13:8 really means?

Gave up his Godly prerogatives? When did that happen? If you believe that just cut Heb 13:8 out of your Bible, or maybe that’s already happened in the NWT.





In Colossians talking about Jesus it says;

Col. 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:



If Jesus were Michael at the time of creation would an angel create all things for himself?




Since the preceding verse says he was “the firstborn of all creation” then I see no issue with his Father allowing him to use His power to create other creatures. God certainly didn’t have problem with Jesus using His power to heal people while he was on Earth.

Your overlooking one critical point, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible” did Jesus create himself first?




If Jesus was Michael before his birth how do you explain this verse in Hebrews?

Heb 1:13

But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?






This was explained in my first post. Go back and read it.

Explain it again for me in light of Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?




If Jesus Christ is Michael how can you explain this?

Mat. 25:31

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:



All the angels would include Michael, did he return with himself?



Rather than embarrass you with a straight answer, why don’t you ask yourself these questions:

1.)Is there any verse(s) in the Bible that says something like ‘Moses and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…?’

There may very well be…but is there any verses that say something like “Moses and all the donkeys of Israel yada yada yada, would you conclude that Moses was a donkey?


2.)If there is, does this mean Moses is not a man of Israel? (and feel free to replace the term Moses with Joshua, Gideon, so on and so forth.)

I’ll replace it with Ruth, does your point still hold?


3.)Does this mean Moses (or a dozen other names) called HIMSELF to gather together?

I won’t embarrass you any more by pursuing this argument. (IE, I’ll forget you ever mentioned it)

The egg is on your face, but please go on, I wouldn’t recognize you any other way.




Upon his resurrection, when Jesus became Michael the Archangel again, why didn’t any of the New Testament writers refer to the resurrected Christ by his name “Michael”?

Can you point out one verse that says Jesus and Michael are the same?





I think they did in Revelation 12. I considered a number of verses in my first post that show Jesus and Michael are the same. What you have failed to do is show one verse that shows that Jesus and Michael are different.


Just because there is not a specific verse that says Michael is not a donkey does not therefore prove that he is? The burden of proof still lays with you, “why didn’t any of the New Testament writers refer to the resurrected Christ by his name “Michael”?




Want me to show you about four hundred verses that show that Jesus and God are different?

What do you mean by different, Jesus has 5 letters in his name and God only has three? That kind of stuff? Fill free to start a new thread with this issue.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT said, “First of all, it is debatable that Jesus’ words of ‘go away Satan’ are the same type of rebuke that Jude is talking about.



Leroy replied, “Go away Satan” would have worked in both cases. Hmm. I have YOUR opinion versus 1 Peter 2:23. Which should I go with? And of course you conveniently ignored the most obvious flaw to your argument, that being Revelation 12 where Michael takes action against Satan.

NT said, “What you’re leaving out is the element of time. That is, Michael was not the Messiah when he was arguing with Satan about Moses’ body…

Leroy replied, “That’s obvious!” While it may be obvious to you that Michael wasn’t the Messiah, what is not obvious to you is the fact that time played a significant part in Jude’s words. But you conveniently ignore that point, don’t you?

Leroy said, “What time did this argument over Moses’ body actual take place?” Wow, you’re a sharp one, aren’t ya? I don’t know, how long does a dead body last? Would I be stretching it to say ‘long before Jesus came to the Earth’?

Are you trying to claim the Jesus didn’t have the capacity to act in His “savior capacity” until he was baptized? If you’re trying to claim that then why pick the point of baptism, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to pick His death on the cross? That is when He actually completed his work of salvation? Jesus came to the Earth for more than just to die. If his death was the only reason he came to the earth he could have done that at 1 year old. (see John 18:36) I think the gospels are pretty clear about his not doing anything until after his baptism. Unless you have a gospel different from what I have. Do you? Do you know anything about the prophecy in Daniel about the 70 weeks and when the 69 weeks began and why after a half week the sacrifices were cut off? Do you see any connection between a ½ week and a 3 ½ year ministry? Or do you think his baptism was just something un-important?

NT said, “That the element of time is not considered in your argument is further evident is that you ignore Revelation 12. In that chapter we see Michael doing more than rebuking Satan; we see him casting Satan down to the Earth. So much for the theory that Michael wouldn’t rebuke Satan!

Theory, what theory? I presented you with an actual verse, Jude 1:9. Michael did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
read it again. Yes, theory was the correct word to use. Read Revelation 12. Do you really think Michael would toss Satan to the Earth but not rebuke him? Zees! In one verse we seeing Michael not taking any action and in the next he tosses him out of heaven. Again, your THEORY that Michael would not rebuke Satan while Jesus did is neglecting the element of time. Read Revelation 12 again.

Leroy asked again, “And at what actual time did this argument over Moses’ body take place?” This stupid question was answered above.

NT said, “Jesus’ time to act against the Pharisees was not appointed until after his baptism. Instead of focusing on one verse, you ought to consider the whole Bible”

Leroy replied, “Is this just conjecture or do you have verses to back up this specific statement?” Hmm, I don’t know Leroy. All I have are the Gospels with NO account of Jesus performing ANY miracles or taking ANY action against the religious leaders until AFTER his baptism. Oh, and I also have Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks with the 70th week beginning 3 ½ years before his death, which is the same length of time between Jesus’ ministry and his death. What do you have?

NT said, “By comparing Jude with Revelation 12 you would have seen the fallacy of your argument.”

Leroy replied, “What fallacy, the fallacy of proper hermeneutics?” Hmm, let’s review your hermeneutics shall we? Your brilliant observation is that Michael wouldn’t rebuke Satan 2000 years before Jesus came to the earth but yet Jesus did rebuke saying by telling him to ‘go away.’ (And a powerful rebuke that was) Your “hermeneutics” (if we can call it that) ignore Revelation 12 were Michael does FAR MORE than just rebuke Satan. So something happened between 2000 years before Christ and Revelation 12 that your “proper hermeneutics” don’t account for. And you STILL haven’t accounted for it!





NT said, “Michael can still be in a class of “foremost princes” and still be higher than the others in the class of foremost princes.”

Leroy replied, “Then why didn’t it say” but, lo, Michael the Highest chief prince the only Begotten of the Father” That statement would not imply equity.” I don’t know. Why does the Bible call Moses “God”? Why does it call kings of Israel “God”? Why did Jesus call kings “Gods”? Do you think these mean they are all equal to God? I hope not. Why does the Bible call Jesus “God’s Son”. Does that not imply an inequality, at least in regards to age?
NT said, “The class they all fit into is that of being created (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14). Since no other archangels are mentioned and it is Michael “and HIS angels” that defeat Satan, it is reasonable he is the highest of all the angels.”

Leroy replied, “Michael just might be, I don’t have a problem with that, Jesus on the other hand can’t be lumped into this category “ And yet that is exactly what Paul, John AND Jesus said about Jesus. See Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and John 6:57


John 5:26

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;



Jesus is the only Begotten Son, no claim of equity there, it’s crystal clear “only Begotten” The only thing crystal clear is that 1.) The Father is older than Jesus and 2.) Jesus has life in himself ONLY because the Father has GIVEN it to him. Where are your brilliant hermeneutics now?

NT said, “If Jesus was God before he came to the Earth; gave up his godly prerogatives and then became God again after his death; what do you think Heb 13:8 really means?”

Gave up his Godly prerogatives? When did that happen? If you believe that just cut Heb 13:8 out of your Bible, or maybe that’s already happened in the NWT. Why don’t you cut out Matthew 24:36 and paste it on your forehead? And I can give you a slew of others where the Son says he can’t do anything except what he is told to do.

regarding Col 1:15, 16. Why don’t you first show me ONE instance elsewhere in scripture where someone is called the firstborn of something and yet is not part of the group he is firstborn of. (this ought to be fun. Happy hunting!)

According to Prov 8, Jesus was the first of God’s creations and then he was used to create all other things.




Leroy wrote.
Explain it again for me in light of Heb 1:5

Heb 1:5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?


GO read my first post. Just scroll up to the top. Then all you have to do is read.



Leroy brilliantly replied to the fact that human king can gather all the male humans without gathering themselves with this reply
: “There may very well be…but is there any verses that say something like “Moses and all the donkeys of Israel yada yada yada, would you conclude that Moses was a donkey? “ The logic is staggering! His original argument was that an angel couldn’t come with “all the angels” because he would be coming with himself. Yet when we see numerous instances where one man of Israel (whether a king, priest or judge) comes with “all the men of Israel” and it is obvious the king, priest or judge is still a man in Israel, Leroy resorts to creating a fictitious scenario of humans and donkeys! I’m trying to be nice but this is quite difficult. Was not his original argument that one could not come with ‘all of his kind’ because he would be coming with himself? And do not the scriptures show this logic to be false? So where did the different natures come into play of that between a human and a donkey? He is obviously trying to say Jesus’ nature is different from an angels (though nothing in scripture say that) but I didn’t use the verse “Jesus comes with all the angels” to prove Jesus had the same nature as angels. I didn’t say ‘Moses coming with all the donkey’s proves Moses is a donkey’ either. I simply said that ‘Jesus coming with all the angels’ no more proves he is not an angel than saying ‘Gideon and all the men of Israel went to war’ means Gideon was not a man in Israel. Leroy’s phenomenal hermeneutics has caused him to create an fictitious argument of which no one argued and of which is irrelivent to the discussion!

Even more brilliant is Leroy’s response to this statement by me regarding this point: “Does this mean Moses is not a man of Israel? (and feel free to replace the term Moses with Joshua, Gideon, so on and so forth.)”
Leroy replies with this statement” “I’ll replace it with Ruth, does your point still hold?”

Well Leroy, I am not aware of any verse that says ‘Ruth gathered all the women of Moabite’ but if there was one I would say it does hold. Whereas from what I’ve seen from your deductive reasoning you would argue Ruth was not a Moabite. The desperation is setting in. Do you actually think out your replies before you type them out?




Leroy asked, “Just because there is not a specific verse that says Michael is not a donkey does not therefore prove that he is? The burden of proof still lays with you, “why didn’t any of the New Testament writers refer to the resurrected Christ by his name “Michael”?”

I don’t know Leroy. Probably the same reason they didn’t define the Trinity. I would say Rev 12 does refer to Jesus as Michael.

[quote] NT said, “Want me to show you about four hundred verses that show that Jesus and God are different?”

Leroy replied, “What do you mean by different, Jesus has 5 letters in his name and God only has three? That kind of stuff? Fill free to start a new thread with this issue.” Yeah, that’s what I meant. Here, start with #1.

“15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.



Now ask yourself Leroy,

1.)Did the Jews who asked the question think Jesus was God?

2.)Did Jesus’ reply cause them to think he was God?

3.)Did Jesus say he was God or separate himself from God?

4.)If you had been there would you have walked away from this saying thinking that Jesus was God?

[twohumble]

The only thing crystal clear is that 1.) The Father is older than Jesus and 2.) Jesus has life in himself ONLY because the Father has GIVEN it to him. Where are your brilliant hermeneutics now?

Why don’t you cut out Matthew 24:36 and paste it on your forehead? And I can give you a slew of others where the Son says he can’t do anything except what he is told to do.

regarding Col 1:15, 16. Why don’t you first show me ONE instance elsewhere in scripture where someone is called the firstborn of something and yet is not part of the group he is firstborn of. (this ought to be fun. Happy hunting!)

Just got back in town, and the discussion is heated I see. Hmm, civility is taking a dive.
Nontrin. You have made some leaps in your "facts". You see, for Jesus to have been there 'in the beginning' begs the question, as well as the fact that He is the alpha and omega. Now I know you disagree, but your assertion that the Father is older is not clear fact, and is highly debated.

In addition, the evidence of 'willing submission' does not seem to fit your understanding of God, but I understand thats because you do not hold to the Trinity. This difference in doctrine certainly leads to disagreements on these issues, but for you to imply you interp is "fact" is a little off base, and I am sure, offensive to those who disagree. This seems to be a source of the digression from civility. Lets not couch our statements as 'fact' when they are so highly debated.

Next, you have once again brought up your 'firstborn not part of the group' argument. This is a clear red herring. It has nothing at all to do with the intent of the usage of the word. The fact, or not, of being included in all instances to the group is not at all proof that Jesus must be included in the group. That is what is called 'a pyrimid of inferences'. It sounds good, seems logical, but its a false trail. It is not relevent. This "rule" you have invoked is not proof of anything, since the times its brought up would obviously include those that the claim is made as part of the group. Jesus can be, and certainly is, an exception. There would be no other time when one would not be part of the group, and in some respects, Jesus being fully human and fully God, He IS part of the group....this again, is irrelevent and a red herring argument to the present discussion.

Now ask yourself Leroy,

1.)Did the Jews who asked the question think Jesus was God?

2.)Did Jesus’ reply cause them to think he was God?

3.)Did Jesus say he was God or separate himself from God?

4.)If you had been there would you have walked away from this saying thinking that Jesus was God?
At this time of night, I have only dealt with a couple points, but this last set of questions is great.

Since Caesar was considered a god by the pagans, the claim of blasphemy to Pilot was that Jesus claimed to be 'a god' at least. This would be understandable to the pagan culture that had more than one god, but, the fact that the implication to pilot put Jesus's claim of being superior to Pilot was the real issue. In addition, the Jews worshiped only ONE God, and they incited their own against Jesus for the very reason of His claiming equality with God making HImself to be God Himself. So, Yes to #1, #2, and Yes He did say he was God in all the ways that would clearly indicate that to the culture that asked the question. The great "I am" is identical to the "I am" of the burning bush. How do you interpret it differently?
So as to #4, Yes, I would have. I am actually not sure what passage you are debating and I am too tired to go back and read it...but my point is that considering all of Jesus's comments I certainly would have thought HE was claiming to be God, yet distinguishing Himself as a distinct person at the same time. Yes, this is a paradox, but an answerable one.

consider the claims of Christ in agregate compared to Father:
The Father IS:

God (Deut 6:4)
Creator (Isa 44:24 note - God is alone)
Lord (Isa 45)
Only Savior (Isa 43:11)
Light (Isa 42:6)
Redeemer (Isa 48:17)
Our Righteousness (Isa 45:24)
Alpha and Omega (Isa 41:4)
Giver of Life (Deut 32:39)
Forgiver of Sin (Dan 9:8-9)
Omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12)
All knowing (Jer 17:9-16)
Pre-existant (Genesis 1:1)
Unchangeable in Nature (Malachi 3:6)
Alone Worthy of Worship (Deut 6:13)
Jehovah revealed in the O.T.

CHRIST IS:

God (John 1:1)
Creator (Col 1:15-18 NWT "other" is not in Greek)
Lord (Phil 2:10-11)
Only Savior (Titus 2:13)
Light (John 1:4-9)
Redeemer (Eph 1:7)
Our Righteousness (Romans 3:20-23)
Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:6-<12-16>-20)
Giver of Life (John 10:27-30)
Forgiver of Sin (Mark 2:5-10)
Omnipresent (Matt 18:20)
All Knowing (John 16:30)
Pre-existant (John 17:5)
Unchangeable in Nature (Hebrews 13:8)
Alone Worthy of Worship (Matt 28:9)
Jehovah revealed in the N.T
(List compiled by Doug Beumont)

This is a pretty amazing similarity and one I find convincing. Much more so than to equate Christ with Michael.

[NonTrinitarian]

Just got back in town, and the discussion is heated I see. Hmm, civility is taking a dive.
Nontrin. You have made some leaps in your "facts". You see, for Jesus to have been there 'in the beginning' begs the question, as well as the fact that He is the alpha and omega. Now I know you disagree, but your assertion that the Father is older is not clear fact, and is highly debated.

In addition, the evidence of 'willing submission' does not seem to fit your understanding of God, but I understand thats because you do not hold to the Trinity. This difference in doctrine certainly leads to disagreements on these issues, but for you to imply you interp is "fact" is a little off base, and I am sure, offensive to those who disagree. This seems to be a source of the digression from civility. Lets not couch our statements as 'fact' when they are so highly debated.Yeah, I wrote that late at night when I was tired and now that I look over it wide awake I can see I was a little rude. I apologize to Leroy. Now, on with the discussion. You quote the word “fact” three times in your reply here but please scroll up to my post. The word “fact” only appears once and that is in regard to the element of time between Michael taking no action in Jude versus taking action in Revelation. Nowhere else did I say “fact” so stop putting words in my mouth. Further, I am simply using words that are in the Bible. Show me any other instance where a son is as old as his father. You can’t. Now try to convince me that I am not justified in interpreting “father” as I do in this instance as well. I am using the word as it is always used. You are wanting to make up a special meaning for it in order to suit your beliefs. Why don’t you just accept what God says?

Next, you have once again brought up your 'firstborn not part of the group' argument. This is a clear red herring. It has nothing at all to do with the intent of the usage of the word. The fact, or not, of being included in all instances to the group is not at all proof that Jesus must be included in the group. That is what is called 'a pyrimid of inferences'. It sounds good, seems logical, but its a false trail. It is not relevent. This "rule" you have invoked is not proof of anything, since the times its brought up would obviously include those that the claim is made as part of the group. Jesus can be, and certainly is, an exception. There would be no other time when one would not be part of the group, and in some respects, Jesus being fully human and fully God, He IS part of the group....this again, is irrelevent and a red herring argument to the present discussion. Again, I use the words God had written down. He used that word because he knew our definition of it. He is not re-writing definitions to all of these words (like father, son, firstborn, etc.) and not telling us He is using a new made-up definition. It is you who is going out on a limb and rejecting ALL OTHER uses of Father, Son and firstborn because they ruin your preconceived belief. How conveinent! Hey, can I just start altering definitions of words to some new definition that is not used anywhere else in the Bible whenever I feel like it?

In addition, the Jews worshiped only ONE God, and they incited their own against Jesus for the very reason of His claiming equality with God making HImself to be God Himself. So, Yes to #1, #2, and Yes He did say he was God in all the ways that would clearly indicate that to the culture that asked the question. The great "I am" is identical to the "I am" of the burning bush. How do you interpret it differently?

So as to #4, Yes, I would have. I am actually not sure what passage you are debating and I am too tired to go back and read it...but my point is that considering all of Jesus's comments I certainly would have thought HE was claiming to be God, yet distinguishing Himself as a distinct person at the same time. Yes, this is a paradox, but an answerable one. You’re comment of “I am actually not sure what passage you are debating and I am too tired to go back and read it” is obvious by your answers. But you didn’t have to look it up, I quoted it. Let’s look at it again and see how your comments fit.

15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.

The questions I asked were:
1.)Did the Jews who asked the question think Jesus was God?
2.)Did Jesus’ reply cause them to think he was God?
3.)Did Jesus say he was God or separate himself from God?
4.)If you had been there would you have walked away from this saying thinking that Jesus was God?

You answered yes to all of them.
1.) Yes, the Jews did think Jesus was God? Then why did they say ““How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” So you are saying that they thought Jesus was God but wondered where he got all of this knowledge?

2.) Yes, Jesus’ reply caused them to think he was God? Why don’t you bold the part where his reply caused them to think he was claiming to be God. “16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him."

3.) You got this one right.

4.) Yes, you would have walked away from this conversation thinking Jesus is God? Funny, no one else did. (read all of John 7) Incidently, the term “I am” doesn’t even appear in this discussion so that wouldn’t have caused them to think he was claiming to be God. If you want to see a discussion on “I am”, go here.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26118


consider the claims of Christ in agregate compared to Father:Okay, let’s do that shall we?
The Father IS:
God (Deut 6:4) (so are humans-John 10:33)
Creator (Isa 44:24 note - God is alone) (agreed, God is called the creator)
Lord (Isa 45) (so are humans, dozens of times)
Only Savior (Isa 43:11) (and yet humans are called “savior” too)
Light (Isa 42:6) (so are humans –Matt 5:14)
Redeemer (Isa 48:17) (agreed)
Our Righteousness (Isa 45:24) (agreed)
Alpha and Omega (Isa 41:4) (agreed)
Giver of Life (Deut 32:39) (yep)
Forgiver of Sin (Dan 9:8-9) (cool)
Omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12) (in a sense)
All knowing (Jer 17:9-16) (yep)
Pre-existant (Genesis 1:1) (obviously though Gen 1:1 only refers to the creation of the earth)
Unchangeable in Nature (Malachi 3:6) (okay)
Alone Worthy of Worship (Deut 6:13) (in the truest sense, yep)
Jehovah revealed in the O.T. (you bet)

CHRIST IS:
God (John 1:1) (and yet this same Christ argued that others are called god)
Creator (Col 1:15-18 NWT "other" is not in Greek) (No where is the title “creator” given to Christ and other doesn’t appear in a number of verses and yet your Bible puts it there.)
Lord (Phil 2:10-11) (along with a dozen other humans and angels)
Only Savior (Titus 2:13) (“only” doesn’t appear in the verse-See jude 25)
Light (John 1:4-9) (So are men –Matt 5:14)
Redeemer (Eph 1:7) (Doesn’t call Jesus the redeemer. The redeemer is God who redeemed us with Jesus)
Our Righteousness (Romans 3:20-23) (The term righteousness is applied to the term God, not Jesus. Ie it says ‘God’s righteousness’. Where does it call Jesus “our righteousness”?)
Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:6-<12-16>-20) –Not hardly
Giver of Life (John 10:27-30) (only because his Father gave him that authority. Sound like God to you?)
Forgiver of Sin (Mark 2:5-10) (the apostle where given authority to forgive sins)
Omnipresent (Matt 18:20) (what an abuse of a verse)
All Knowing (John 16:30) (Does Matt 24:36 ring a bell?)
Pre-existant (John 17:5) (Angels were before the founding of the world too)
Unchangeable in Nature (Hebrews 13:8) (“Nature” doesn’t appear in the verse)
Alone Worthy of Worship (Matt 28:9) (“alone” doesn’t appear in the verse and the same action applied to Jesus (proskyneo) is applied to humans throughout the Bible)
Jehovah revealed in the N.T (What? No scripture for this one? Here is one showing he was not identified with Jehovah. Matt 22:43)
(List compiled by Doug Beumont) (Doug didn’t do a very good job)


This is a pretty amazing similarity and one I find convincing. Much more so than to equate Christ with Michael.I don’t know about that. You only had 15 items for comparison. I had 12 for Michael being Jesus.
1.) Both have the term “archangel” applied to them: (Jude 9, 1 Thess 4:16)
2.) Both have authority over angels (Rev 12”7, 2 Thess 1:7)
3.) Both prophesied to defeat Satan (Rev 12:7, Gen 3:15)
4.) Both leading the heavenly armies (Rev 12:7, Rev 19:11-21)
5.) Both said to stand up as kings (Dan 12:1, Dan 7:14)
6.) Unprecedented time of distress when become king (Dan 12:1, Matt 24:21)
7.) Righteous in book of life would escape during that time (Dan 12:1, Matt 24:22)
8.) Resurrection would occur during their time (Dan 12:2, John 5:28,29)
9.) Voice people would hear would be Jesus’ (John 5:28,29)
10.) Voice people would hear would be an archangels (1 Thess 4:16)
11.) Judgment would occur during this time (Dan 12:2, John 5:28)
12.) Knowledge and insight would occur during this time (Dan 12:3, Matt 13:43)

And you know what else I have? Nearly four hundred verses distinguishing Jesus from God. IE, the term “Jesus” and “God” appear in the same verse and they are not applied to the same person. Now how many verses do you have where “Jesus” and “Michael” appear in the same verse and are applied to two different persons?

I knew we couldn’t have a discussion of Jesus being Michael with the Trinity being brought up. Let’s move it to another thread.

[twohumble]

Hi Nontrin
I am at work, so this is brief.
You are right, I was applying my response to "did they think Jesus is God" to the scripture in its entirety, not the verse you quoted. My mistake, it was due to the late hour.

I just wanted to point out to you that Hebrews 13:8 may not say the word 'nature', but what is your point? It clearly says Jesus is unchanged

In addition, the fact that Jesus and The Father are refered to as different persons is not disputed. The JW's, and others (muslims et.) miss the point of the trinity. We understand The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all to be different persons in one Godhead. We do not claim that Jesus and the Father are not distinct persons. This is a mystery and a paradox, since it implies that we believe in three separate Gods. This is not so. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, does one of the best jobs of explaining the multidimensionality of God, and how He can be 3 in 1 yet be distinctly individual.
Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to devote to typing his explanation out. I will look for a link and try to post it later.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi Nontrin
I am at work, so this is brief.
You are right, I was applying my response to "did they think Jesus is God" to the scripture in its entirety, not the verse you quoted. My mistake, it was due to the late hour.

I just wanted to point out to you that Hebrews 13:8 may not say the word 'nature', but what is your point? It clearly says Jesus is unchangedAnd so the question you have to ask yourself is what he meant by that. Read the very next verse for an understanding of what he was talking about. He wasn't just all of a sudden, out of the blue, telling us Jesus was the same yesterday, today and forever. He was addressing a point and it includes verse 9.

In addition, the fact that Jesus and The Father are refered to as different persons is not disputed. The JW's, and others (muslims et.) miss the point of the trinity. We understand The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all to be different persons in one Godhead. We do not claim that Jesus and the Father are not distinct persons. This is a mystery and a paradox, since it implies that we believe in three separate Gods. This is not so. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, does one of the best jobs of explaining the multidimensionality of God, and how He can be 3 in 1 yet be distinctly individual.
Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to devote to typing his explanation out. I will look for a link and try to post it later.I never argued Jesus was the same person as the Father. And the verses I reference are not contrasting Jesus with the Father. They contrast Jesus with the person of God. (see Heb 9:24 for an example) Furthermore, I'm not the one who has to refute why God is not three persons in one. It's Trinitarians who have to prove it.

If Joe walks up to the President, do I have to try to convince you Joe isn't the President?

If Joe receives authority to do something from the President, do I have to explain to you why I don't think Joe is the President?

If Joe says Bob is the only true President who sent him (Joe) to the country of Spain, do you require me to prove to you that Joe is not the President?

If Joe says he can do nothing on his own but only what the President tells him, am I to be condemened for assuming Joe has less authority than the President?

If Joe says the President is his Father, am I being foolish for assuming the President is older than Joe?

If Joe sits down next to the President am I the one who has to explain why I don't think the President is a multi-person being made up of both Joe and Bob?

The answers are obviously no. I don't have any reason to think that when Deuteronomy says "Jehovah our God is One" that it really means he is three. When Jesus told the man what the greatest commandment was he said, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord, and you must love the Lord your God with your whole heart...', the man replied, "Teacher, you well said in line with truth, 'He is One and there is no other than He'."...At this Jesus, discerning he had answered intelligently, said to him: "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." (Mark 12:29-34)

Note that Jesus reaffirms there is one Jehovah and Jehovah is one. The man agrees with Jesus but did you notice he apparently didn't think Jesus was Jehovah? He said "He is one", not "you are one." Jesus then said the man answered intelligently. Rather than correcting the man's viewpoint by saying "I am Jehovah", Jesus simply reaffirmed the man's understanding that Jehovah was someone other than Jesus.

This man was under NO obligation to assume or even suggest that God was more than one person. Why should he? Trinitarians explain away hundreds of verses that clearly differentiate Jesus from God (note, not the father or God the Father but God, period) by creating some mystical three-person God which is nowhere even mentioned in the Bible. Then they condemn us for thinking that if Jesus walked up to God and took something from him Jesus couldn't be that same very God!

[twohumble]

And so the question you have to ask yourself is what he meant by that. Read the very next verse for an understanding of what he was talking about. He wasn't just all of a sudden, out of the blue, telling us Jesus was the same yesterday, today and forever. He was addressing a point and it includes verse 9.

I never argued Jesus was the same person as the Father. And the verses I reference are not contrasting Jesus with the Father. They contrast Jesus with the person of God. (see Heb 9:24 for an example) Furthermore, I'm not the one who has to refute why God is not three persons in one. It's Trinitarians who have to prove it.

If Joe walks up to the President, do I have to try to convince you Joe isn't the President?

If Joe receives authority to do something from the President, do I have to explain to you why I don't think Joe is the President?

If Joe says Bob is the only true President who sent him (Joe) to the country of Spain, do you require me to prove to you that Joe is not the President?

If Joe says he can do nothing on his own but only what the President tells him, am I to be condemened for assuming Joe has less authority than the President?

If Joe says the President is his Father, am I being foolish for assuming the President is older than Joe?

If Joe sits down next to the President am I the one who has to explain why I don't think the President is a multi-person being made up of both Joe and Bob?

The answers are obviously no. I don't have any reason to think that when Deuteronomy says "Jehovah our God is One" that it really means he is three. When Jesus told the man what the greatest commandment was he said, "The first is, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord, and you must love the Lord your God with your whole heart...', the man replied, "Teacher, you well said in line with truth, 'He is One and there is no other than He'."...At this Jesus, discerning he had answered intelligently, said to him: "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." (Mark 12:29-34)

Note that Jesus reaffirms there is one Jehovah and Jehovah is one. The man agrees with Jesus but did you notice he apparently didn't think Jesus was Jehovah? He said "He is one", not "you are one." Jesus then said the man answered intelligently. Rather than correcting the man's viewpoint by saying "I am Jehovah", Jesus simply reaffirmed the man's understanding that Jehovah was someone other than Jesus.

This man was under NO obligation to assume or even suggest that God was more than one person. Why should he? Trinitarians explain away hundreds of verses that clearly differentiate Jesus from God (note, not the father or God the Father but God, period) by creating some mystical three-person God which is nowhere even mentioned in the Bible. Then they condemn us for thinking that if Jesus walked up to God and took something from him Jesus couldn't be that same very God!
Nontrin
We seem to be getting far afield of this thread. Let me just say that as many verses as you say trinitarians "explain away" or rationalize, nontrinitarians must do the same. The bible is the only holy scripture in the world that explains God to be multidimensional, and beyond human explanation for His entirety. Joe is not the President, but Joe is Human. God is not.

Back to your 12 similarities between Michael and Jesus. You once again list 1 thes passage as a comparison. This is HIGHLY debatable. Jesus decends to a trumpet, and Michaels voice hailing Him. I totally reject the idea this verse means that Jesus had the voice of Michael emminating from His mouth. Nor do I think the passage refers to Jesus as the archangle in this passage. This alone reduces your list to 10, and I am not threw with my disagreements. Here is a more comprehensive list:

Jesus Christ is God (YHVH)
The Deity of Jesus Christ from the Scriptures
Characteristic God or Jehovah (YHVH) Jesus Christ
Who is omnipotent (all powerful)? 1 Chronicles 29:11 (YHVH) Philippians 3:20-21 Christ
Who is omniscient (all knowing)? 1 John 3:20 Colossians 2:2-3 Christ
Who is omnipresent (present everywhere)? Proverbs 15:3 (YHVH) 2 Corinthians 2:14 Christ
Who is Lord of Sabbath? YHVH Genesis 2:3 Matthew 12:8 Christ
Who is the great "I am?" Exodus 3:14 (YHVH) John 8:58 Christ
Who is the only creator? Isaiah 44:24 (YHVH) John 1:3 Christ
Who is the only savior? Isaiah 43:11, 45:21 (YHVH) Acts 4:12 CHrist
Who will judge mankind? Isaiah 3:13, 14 (YHVH) 2 Corinthians 5:10 Christ
Who will judge between the sheep and goats? Ezekiel 34:17 (YHVH) Matthew 25:31-33 Christ
Who sent the prophets? Jeremiah 7:25 (YHVH) Matthew 23:34 CHrist
Who resurrected Jesus? Acts 4:10 (YHVH) John 10:17-18 Christ
Who is "coming in glory?" Isaiah 40:5 (YHVH) Matthew 24:30 Christ
Who is our Father? Isaiah 63:16 (YHVH) Isaiah 9:6 Christ
Who is the "first and last?" Isaiah 44:6 (YHVH) Revelation 1:17 Christ
Who is Rock of salvation? 2 Samuel 22:32 (YHVH) 1 Corinthians 10:4 Christ
Who is Stone of stumbling? Isaiah 8:13-15 (YHVH) 1 Peter 2:8 Christ
"One crying in the wilderness" came to prepare a way for whom? Isaiah 40:3 (YHVH) Matthew 3:3 Christ
Who is eternal? Genesis 21:33 (YHVH) Micah 5:2 Messiah Christ
Who is the fountain of living waters? Jeremiah 17:13 (YHVH) John 4:10-14 Christ
Who resurrects the dead? Acts 26:8 John 6:40 (The Father and Christ)
Who gives rewards to man? Isaiah 40:10 (YHVH) Matthew 16:27 Christ
Who has all authority and power? 1 Chronicles 29:11 (YHVH) Matthew 28:18 Christ
Who gives power and authority to man?(YHVH) Psalms 68:35 Luke 9:1 Christ
Who forgives sin? 2 Chronicles 7:14 (YHVH) Matthew 9:6 Christ
Who sent the Holy Spirit? John 14:16 John 16:7
Who has the greatest name? Nehemiah 9:5 (YHVH) Philippians 2:9 Christ
Whom are we to worship? Exodus 34:14 (YHVH) Revelation 5:12-13 Christ
Who is the good Shepherd? (YHVH) Genesis 48:15 John 10:14 Christ
Who searches for the lost sheep of Israel? Ezekiel 34:11 (YHVH) Matthew 15:24 Christ
Who is "Lord of Lords?" Deuteronomy 10:17 (YHVH) Revelation 17:14 Christ
To whom shall every knee bow? Isaiah 45:22-23 (YHVH) Philippians 2:10 Christ
Who is the righteous branch of David? Jeremiah 23:5-6 (YHVH) Jeremiah 33:15 Messiah
Who alone is Holy? 1 Samuel 2:2 (YHVH) Acts 3:14 Christ
Whose blood cleanses us? The Father Acts 20:28 1 John 1:7 Christ
The world was created for whom? Proverbs 16:4 (YHVH) Colossians 1:16 Christ
Who is above all? Nehemiah 9:6 (YHVH) Romans 9:5 Christ
Who is forever the same? Psalms 102:24-27 Hebrews 1:8-12 Christ
Who is our light? Psalms 27:1 (YHVH) John 8:12 Christ
Who is the way or path? Psalms 16:11 (YHVH) John 14:6 Christ
Who is in charge of the angels? Psalms 103:20 (YHVH) 2 Thesselonians 1:7 Christ
Who gives us rest? Exodus 33:14 (YHVH) Matthew 11:28 Christ
Who gives eternal life? Proverbs 19:23 (YHVH) John 3:36 Christ
We are the bride of whom? Isaiah 54:5 (YHVH) 2 Corinthians 11:2 Christ
Who tests the heart and mind? Jeremiah 17:10 (YHVH) Revelation 2:23 Christ

Bible Verses Stating Jesus is God
Statement Verse
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, "God with us." Matthew 1:23
And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited His people!" Luke 7:16
In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God. John 1:1
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18
He [Jesus]... was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 5:18
I and the Father are one. John 10:30
The Jews answered Him [Jesus], "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33
You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. John 13:13
Jesus said to him, "...He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father?'" John 14:9
And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. John 17:5
Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28
...the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4
...Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, Philippians 2:6
...to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Colossians 2:9
God was manifest in the flesh... 1 Timothy 3:16
...our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time-- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; 1 Timothy 6:15
God...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son...And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature... Hebrews 1:2-3
But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever... Hebrews 1:8
...the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; Titus 2:13
Simon Peter ... by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1
And on His robe and on His thigh He [Jesus] has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:16

NonTrin, the problem is, you can point to as many or more that bring up a paradox. You refuse to acknowledge the paradox or the way to solve it. You focus on the separation of the Father and the Son, and not the verses that show sameness. Your religion has picked a far out possibility, that causes us to stretch all exegetical sense, to equate Michael with Christ. Yet you refuse to acknowledge the similarities with the Father.

I really don't think that its ambigous when the NT tells us all knees will bend before Christ, and no angle is worthy of worship. Or no angle is of the same 'stuff' as the Father, so no angle can be called "Son" in the sense of 'begotten Son" which is clearly different the "created son".

The point is that the paradox resolution lies in the multidimensionality of God and His nature. How He can be 3/1 and we cannot. Attempts to deny this, result in all sorts of other exegetical problems, such as the attempt to equate an angle with Jesus, which by the plain reading of the texts, seems ludicrous.

[Leroy]

Nice post twohumble, very good verses!:thumb:

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin
We seem to be getting far afield of this thread. Let me just say that as many verses as you say trinitarians "explain away" or rationalize, nontrinitarians must do the same. The bible is the only holy scripture in the world that explains God to be multidimensional, and beyond human explanation for His entirety. Joe is not the President, but Joe is Human. God is not.What scripture says God is multi-dimensional?

The first is, 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord'

You have a verse that says the Lord our God is three?

Back to your 12 similarities between Michael and Jesus. You once again list 1 thes passage as a comparison. This is HIGHLY debatable. Jesus decends to a trumpet, and Michaels voice hailing Him. I totally reject the idea this verse means that Jesus had the voice of Michael emminating from His mouth. Nor do I think the passage refers to Jesus as the archangle in this passage. All you have said is, in a sense, 'uh uhg'. That's not an answer. 'I don't agree with it' is not an answer either. I clearly showed that
1.) When Michael the archangel stands the resurrection happens (Dan 12:1)
2.) Jesus said when the dead hear "HIS voice" they will be resurrected
3.) Paul said when the dead hear the "archangel's voice" they will be resurrected.

TwoHumble, I'd be willing to bet my life if Paul said Jesus came with "God's voice" you would say the following:
1.) No one can come with God's voice except God, thus Jesus is god
2.) Jesus said during the resurrection the dead would hear HIS voice. Paul said they would hear GOD's voice. Thus, Jesus is God.

Do you deny that you would not use those arguments? I know you would use them. Look at your list below for proof of your logic.

This alone reduces your list to 10, and I am not threw with my disagreements. Here is a more comprehensive list:

Jesus Christ is God (YHVH)
The Deity of Jesus Christ from the Scriptures
Characteristic God or Jehovah (YHVH) Jesus Christ
Who is omnipotent (all powerful)? 1 Chronicles 29:11 (YHVH) Philippians 3:20-21 Christ
Who is omniscient (all knowing)? 1 John 3:20 Colossians 2:2-3 Christ
Who is omnipresent (present everywhere)? Proverbs 15:3 (YHVH) 2 Corinthians 2:14 Christ
Who is Lord of Sabbath? YHVH Genesis 2:3 Matthew 12:8 Christ
Who is the great "I am?" Exodus 3:14 (YHVH) John 8:58 Christ
Who is the only creator? Isaiah 44:24 (YHVH) John 1:3 Christ
Who is the only savior? Isaiah 43:11, 45:21 (YHVH) Acts 4:12 CHrist
Who will judge mankind? Isaiah 3:13, 14 (YHVH) 2 Corinthians 5:10 Christ
Who will judge between the sheep and goats? Ezekiel 34:17 (YHVH) Matthew 25:31-33 Christ
Who sent the prophets? Jeremiah 7:25 (YHVH) Matthew 23:34 CHrist
Who resurrected Jesus? Acts 4:10 (YHVH) John 10:17-18 Christ
Who is "coming in glory?" Isaiah 40:5 (YHVH) Matthew 24:30 Christ
Who is our Father? Isaiah 63:16 (YHVH) Isaiah 9:6 Christ
Who is the "first and last?" Isaiah 44:6 (YHVH) Revelation 1:17 Christ
Who is Rock of salvation? 2 Samuel 22:32 (YHVH) 1 Corinthians 10:4 Christ
Who is Stone of stumbling? Isaiah 8:13-15 (YHVH) 1 Peter 2:8 Christ
"One crying in the wilderness" came to prepare a way for whom? Isaiah 40:3 (YHVH) Matthew 3:3 Christ
Who is eternal? Genesis 21:33 (YHVH) Micah 5:2 Messiah Christ
Who is the fountain of living waters? Jeremiah 17:13 (YHVH) John 4:10-14 Christ
Who resurrects the dead? Acts 26:8 John 6:40 (The Father and Christ)
Who gives rewards to man? Isaiah 40:10 (YHVH) Matthew 16:27 Christ
Who has all authority and power? 1 Chronicles 29:11 (YHVH) Matthew 28:18 Christ
Who gives power and authority to man?(YHVH) Psalms 68:35 Luke 9:1 Christ
Who forgives sin? 2 Chronicles 7:14 (YHVH) Matthew 9:6 Christ
Who sent the Holy Spirit? John 14:16 John 16:7
Who has the greatest name? Nehemiah 9:5 (YHVH) Philippians 2:9 Christ
Whom are we to worship? Exodus 34:14 (YHVH) Revelation 5:12-13 Christ
Who is the good Shepherd? (YHVH) Genesis 48:15 John 10:14 Christ
Who searches for the lost sheep of Israel? Ezekiel 34:11 (YHVH) Matthew 15:24 Christ
Who is "Lord of Lords?" Deuteronomy 10:17 (YHVH) Revelation 17:14 Christ
To whom shall every knee bow? Isaiah 45:22-23 (YHVH) Philippians 2:10 Christ
Who is the righteous branch of David? Jeremiah 23:5-6 (YHVH) Jeremiah 33:15 Messiah
Who alone is Holy? 1 Samuel 2:2 (YHVH) Acts 3:14 Christ
Whose blood cleanses us? The Father Acts 20:28 1 John 1:7 Christ
The world was created for whom? Proverbs 16:4 (YHVH) Colossians 1:16 Christ
Who is above all? Nehemiah 9:6 (YHVH) Romans 9:5 Christ
Who is forever the same? Psalms 102:24-27 Hebrews 1:8-12 Christ
Who is our light? Psalms 27:1 (YHVH) John 8:12 Christ
Who is the way or path? Psalms 16:11 (YHVH) John 14:6 Christ
Who is in charge of the angels? Psalms 103:20 (YHVH) 2 Thesselonians 1:7 Christ
Who gives us rest? Exodus 33:14 (YHVH) Matthew 11:28 Christ
Who gives eternal life? Proverbs 19:23 (YHVH) John 3:36 Christ
We are the bride of whom? Isaiah 54:5 (YHVH) 2 Corinthians 11:2 Christ
Who tests the heart and mind? Jeremiah 17:10 (YHVH) Revelation 2:23 ChristI've already answered a number of those from your last post. What good did it due? Your premise is wrong on most of them. For example, take the one about Jesus being all knowing. Did I not say that Matt 24:36 disproves that? And yet you never dealt with it. There is really no point in addressing anything because you basically ignore every argument and bulldoze ahead.

Bible Verses Stating Jesus is God
Statement Verse
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, "God with us." Matthew 1:23
And fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited His people!" Luke 7:16
In the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God. John 1:1
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18
He [Jesus]... was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. John 5:18
I and the Father are one. John 10:30
The Jews answered Him [Jesus], "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33
You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. John 13:13
Jesus said to him, "...He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father?'" John 14:9
And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. John 17:5
Thomas answered and said to Him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!" John 20:28
...the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4
...Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, Philippians 2:6
...to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Colossians 2:9
God was manifest in the flesh... 1 Timothy 3:16
...our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time-- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; 1 Timothy 6:15
God...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son...And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature... Hebrews 1:2-3
But of the Son He says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever... Hebrews 1:8
...the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; Titus 2:13
Simon Peter ... by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1
And on His robe and on His thigh He [Jesus] has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:16 I'm going to take one of these and let's see how you handle the argument. If you deal with it fairly I'll address the others. Let's do the first one on Immanuel.

Some have concluded this verse implies Jesus is God since Jesus is prophetically called Immanuel and Immanuel means "With Us Is God." But does Jesus' being given the name Immanuel mean he is God? Was God trying to tell the Jews He personally would be with them in physical form in Jesus when Jesus came to the Earth? Before we answer this question, it should be stated the Jews did not take this verse (Isaiah 7: 14) to mean that. They knew this applied to the Messiah but this did not make them think the Messiah would be God Himself. Why is that the case?

We find Jesus was not the first person to be given the name Immanuel by God. At Isaiah 7: 14, God prophecies of another person who was to be called Immanuel as well. True, this prophecy does have its final fulfillment in Jesus but the context shows it would have its initial fulfillment long before Jesus came to the Earth. (Read Isaiah 7 and 8.) Scholars have speculated who this Immanuel was, concluding most likely it was one of Isaiah's sons, probably Ma'her-shal al-hash-baz, though some think he was Ahaz's son Hezekiah . Although we will not debate about the identity of the first person who was given the name Immanuel by God, we realize this person was not thought to actually be God. Thus, the Jews were already aware God prophetically called a human by the name Immanuel and they knew God was not physically present with them on the Earth through this person. So how does Jesus' being called Immanuel prove he is God? It seems to be special pleading by Trinitarians.

Names in Bible times commonly had meanings associated with them. For example, consider the name Jehu. It means "Jehovah is He." Is Jehu Jehovah? No, although his name may imply he is. Eli'athah means "God Has Come." Did people think God was walking around them whenever Eli'athah dropped by? Obviously not. The name Ith i-el means "God is with me" but it is safe to say his parents did not believe their son was Deity. (Proverbs 30: 1) Therefore, the name Immanuel, given to Jesus or anyone else, would not cause the Jews to think God was with them physically.

Why did God call this person in Isaiah's day by the name Immanuel? It was to serve as a sign to both Isaiah and King Ahaz that God was going to turn His attention to His people and save them from the Assyrian army. In that sense the Jews' could say "with us is God" and yet they did not think God was actually walking on Earth with them. (Note this in Isaiah 8:10.) In the same way Jesus was called Immanuel not because he was God but because he was to serve as a sign God had turned His attention to His people. (See Luke 7: 16.)

Murray Harris author of Jesus As God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, after examining in detail Matthew 1:23 draws this conclusion: "There are therefore strong reasons for believing that.. .in Jesus God is present to bring salvation to his people rather than JesusJ as [ho theos] is personally present with his people. Matthew is not saying "Someone who is 'God' is now physically with us" but "God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus."

When certain names implied the person possessing that name was God the Jews knew better. We should too. By allowing the scriptures to show how names involved various sayings or expressions we can understand what was meant by giving the name "Immanuel" to both a man in Isaiah's day and to Jesus. It had nothing to do with either one of them being God. Jesus being called Immanuel is no credible proof of his being God. That came from an earlier thread I had with Bill. Go hear to read up on it.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15883&page=1


NonTrin, the problem is, you can point to as many or more that bring up a paradox. You refuse to acknowledge the paradox or the way to solve it. You focus on the separation of the Father and the Son, and not the verses that show sameness. Your religion has picked a far out possibility, that causes us to stretch all exegetical sense, to equate Michael with Christ. Yet you refuse to acknowledge the similarities with the Father. Either you are not reading my posts or you are intentionally ignoring them. I hope it's not the latter. Did I not specifially state that the hundreds of verses I use do not separate Jesus from the Father? They separate Jesus from God, PERIOD. There are NO verses that say God is a multi-personality being. That is what you read into the NT based on your Trinitarian belief.

Go hear for a discussion of that:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14755

Also, see my thread on who is assuming what to base their beliefs.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22165

I really don't think that its ambigous when the NT tells us all knees will bend before Christ, and no angle is worthy of worship. Jesus isn't worshipped either unless you make him worshipped. You choose to translate proskyneo as worship only when it suits you.

Or no angle is of the same 'stuff' as the Father, so no angle can be called "Son" in the sense of 'begotten Son" which is clearly different the "created son". I already addressed this in another thread with you on why Jesus is God's only-begotten son.

[quote[The point is that the paradox resolution lies in the multidimensionality of God and His nature. How He can be 3/1 and we cannot. Attempts to deny this, result in all sorts of other exegetical problems, such as the attempt to equate an angle with Jesus, which by the plain reading of the texts, seems ludicrous.[/QUOTE]And I would believe the Trinity if you can show me where God is not one but instead three.

[Leroy]

NonTrin:
“First of all, it is debatable that Jesus’ words of ‘go away Satan’ are the same type of rebuke that Jude is talking about.
Leroy:
“Go away Satan” would have worked in both cases.

NonTrin:
Hmm. I have YOUR opinion versus 1 Peter 2:23. Which should I go with? And of course you conveniently ignored the most obvious flaw to your argument, that being Revelation 12 where Michael takes action against Satan.
The most obvious denial is your refusing to see that Michael refered the rebuke to the Lord


NonTrin:
“What you’re leaving out is the element of time. That is, Michael was not the Messiah when he was arguing with Satan about Moses’ body…
Leroy:
“That’s obvious!”
NonTrin:
While it may be obvious to you that Michael wasn’t the Messiah, what is not obvious to you is the fact that time played a significant part in Jude’s words. But you conveniently ignore that point, don’t you?
You said it NonTrin, “Michael was not the Messiah when he was arguing with Satan about Moses’ body…”
I wholeheartedly agree!!


Leroy:
“What time did this argument over Moses’ body actual take place?”
NonTrin:
Wow, you’re a sharp one, aren’t ya? I don’t know, how long does a dead body last?
The only dead body that didn’t last was Jesus’! Lazarus and the widows son rose from the dead, prior to Jesus’ resurrection only to return to the grave, Jesus went to the throne.

Would I be stretching it to say ‘long before Jesus came to the Earth’?
Is that your guess? Tell me NonTrin, what do you base this guess on, can you point to a scripture dating the argument over Moses’ body or is it just convenient to your point to say “long before Jesus came to the earth” to make your point?


Leroy:
Are you trying to claim the Jesus didn’t have the capacity to act in His “savior capacity” until he was baptized? If you’re trying to claim that then why pick the point of baptism, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to pick His death on the cross? That is when He actually completed his work of salvation?
NonTrin:
Jesus came to the Earth for more than just to die. If his death was the only reason he came to the earth he could have done that at 1 year old. (see John 18:36)
How did you come to this conclusion, by jumping? I never said Jesus came to the Earth just to die. Either your reading comprehension is pour or you have no answer to my question and resort to this dodge.

I think the gospels are pretty clear about his not doing anything until after his baptism.
And your point is what? Jesus created before his baptism, that was pretty incredible, is that un-important? I fail to see any connection at all between this and Jude 1:9

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

It makes no sense NonTrin, If you say the Lord and Michael are the same, simply replace the Lord in the verse above with Michael; “But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, " I’ll will rebuke you later punk, after I become Jesus and get baptized”

Its kinda like that Clint Eastwood movie, I can just see Michael standing over Satan saying, “well punk, have a gotten baptized yet or haven’t I? Well punk have I? Come on, grab Moses’ dead body, go ahead I dare ya! Come on punk, make my day!



Unless you have a gospel different from what I have. Do you?

I think I do, I don’t use the NWT.

Do you know anything about the prophecy in Daniel about the 70 weeks and when the 69 weeks began and why after a half week the sacrifices were cut off? Do you see any connection between a ½ week and a 3 ½ year ministry? Or do you think his baptism was just something un-important?

I don’t see any connection between this and Michael not daring to pronounce against Satan a railing judgement.


NonTrin:
“That the element of time is not considered in your argument is further evident is that you ignore Revelation 12. In that chapter we see Michael doing more than rebuking Satan; we see him casting Satan down to the Earth. So much for the theory that Michael wouldn’t rebuke Satan!
Leroy:
Theory, what theory? I presented you with an actual verse, Jude 1:9. Michael did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
read it again.
NonTrin:
Yes, theory was the correct word to use.
So, you think Jude 1:9 is a theory?

Read Revelation 12. Do you really think Michael would toss Satan to the Earth but not rebuke him? Zees! In one verse we seeing Michael not taking any action and in the next he tosses him out of heaven. Again, your THEORY that Michael would not rebuke Satan while Jesus did is neglecting the element of time. Read Revelation 12 again.
What part of did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment don’t you understand?


Leroy:
“And at what actual time did this argument over Moses’ body take place?”
NonTrin:
This stupid question was answered above.
It was? Your answer “how long does a dead body last” ….Hmm, how old are those mummies, they are still dead aren’t they? What part of your above statement was the answer, can you give me more then an assumption, how about a verse?


NonTrin:
“Jesus’ time to act against the Pharisees was not appointed until after his baptism. Instead of focusing on one verse, you ought to consider the whole Bible”

Leroy:
“Is this just conjecture or do you have verses to back up this specific statement?”
NonTrin:
Hmm, I don’t know Leroy. All I have are the Gospels with NO account of Jesus performing ANY miracles or taking ANY action against the religious leaders until AFTER his baptism. Oh, and I also have Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks with the 70th week beginning 3 ½ years before his death, which is the same length of time between Jesus’ ministry and his death. What do you have?
I have the same thing, I don’t see where it says Jesus’ time to act against the Pharisees was not appointed until after his baptism.


NonTrin:
“By comparing Jude with Revelation 12 you would have seen the fallacy of your argument.”

Leroy:
“What fallacy, the fallacy of proper hermeneutics?”

NonTrin:
Hmm, let’s review your hermeneutics shall we? Your brilliant observation is that Michael wouldn’t rebuke Satan 2000 years before Jesus came to the earth but yet Jesus did rebuke saying by telling him to ‘go away.’ (And a powerful rebuke that was) Your “hermeneutics” (if we can call it that) ignore Revelation 12 were Michael does FAR MORE than just rebuke Satan. So something happened between 2000 years before Christ and Revelation 12 that your “proper hermeneutics” don’t account for. And you STILL haven’t accounted for it!
Your apparent dodge of the fact that Michael didn’t dare announce a railing judgement on Satan, but referred to the Lord to do so, tells me you are not very comfortable with this verse and choice to ignore it.
Did it ever occur to you that Michael, not wanting to act on his own referred to the Lord at one point and with the Lord’s blessings acted after? Or is that such a stretch that it is inconceivable to you? If I say I don’t dare to rebuke someone, but I will say the Lord rebuke you, am I saying after my baptism I will rebuke you or am I saying that I will leave it to the Lord to cast judgement on you? If the Lord then tells me to rebuke someone and I will, am I assuming I have the power to judge in and of myself or is that power coming through the authority that the Lord has given me?




NonTrin:
“Michael can still be in a class of “foremost princes” and still be higher than the others in the class of foremost princes.”

Leroy:
“Then why didn’t it say” but, lo, Michael the Highest chief prince the only Begotten of the Father” That statement would not imply equity.”
NonTrin:
I don’t know.

I do, simply because that would lead one to believe Jesus and Michael were the same.

Why does the Bible call Moses “God”? Why does it call kings of Israel “God”? Why did Jesus call kings “Gods”? Do you think these mean they are all equal to God?
I hope not. Why does the Bible call Jesus “God’s Son”. Does that not imply an inequality, at least in regards to age?
Your answers are all over the page, they remind me of one of those goffers that try running across the road, and when they see a car coming, they panic and change direction 50 times trying not to get run over.


NonTrin:
“The class they all fit into is that of being created (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14). Since no other archangels are mentioned and it is Michael “and HIS angels” that defeat Satan, it is reasonable he is the highest of all the angels.”

Leroy:
“Michael just might be, I don’t have a problem with that, Jesus on the other hand can’t be lumped into this category “
NonTrin:
And yet that is exactly what Paul, John AND Jesus said about Jesus. See Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and John 6:57

Read a little further in Colossians,
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
In Col 1:15 the term “first born” does not always mean literally the first one born. Compare Gen 41:51-52 with Jer 31:9, In Gen. Joseph’s firstborn was Manasseh, his second born was Ephraim, in Jer. this order is reversed. In some cases this term “first born” is used in the context of culture, meaning preeminence, preeminent one or son.
Reading Colossians 1:15 in the light of verses 16 and 17 makes it all to clear that Jesus was the preeminent.


Leroy:
John 5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Jesus is the only Begotten Son, no claim of equity there, it’s crystal clear “only Begotten”
NonTrin:
The only thing crystal clear is that 1.) The Father is older than Jesus and 2.) Jesus has life in himself ONLY because the Father has GIVEN it to him. Where are your brilliant hermeneutics now?
Fine NonTrin, if you don’t see it I can’t make you see it.



NonTrin:
“If Jesus was God before he came to the Earth; gave up his godly prerogatives and then became God again after his death; what do you think Heb 13:8 really means?”
Leroy:
Gave up his Godly prerogatives? When did that happen? If you believe that just cut Heb 13:8 out of your Bible, or maybe that’s already happened in the NWT.
NonTrin:
Why don’t you cut out Matthew 24:36 and paste it on your forehead? And I can give you a slew of others where the Son says he can’t do anything except what he is told to do.
Okay I’ve got Matthew 24:36 pasted on my forehead, but I still read Hebrews 13:8 as “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” deflating your theory that Jesus was Michael and changed to Jesus and then to Michael again. Do you mean that I should cut out Matthew 24:36 and paste it over my eyes, is that how you get around this verse?


regarding Col 1:15, 16. Why don’t you first show me ONE instance elsewhere in scripture where someone is called the firstborn of something and yet is not part of the group he is firstborn of. (this ought to be fun. Happy hunting!)
Why, are you claiming Jesus isn’t unique?



According to Prov 8, Jesus was the first of God’s creations and then he was used to create all other things.
Proverbs 8 is talking about wisdom and doing so in the female gender this is not messianic.

Leroy:
Explain it again for me in light of Heb 1:5
Heb 1:5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
NonTrin:
GO read my first post. Just scroll up to the top. Then all you have to do is read.
Okay is that my penance for asking a question that you can’t answer? Now go ahead and answer it!



NonTrin:
Leroy brilliantly replied to the fact that human king can gather all the male humans without gathering themselves with this reply
Leroy:
: “There may very well be…but is there any verses that say something like “Moses and all the donkeys of Israel yada yada yada, would you conclude that Moses was a donkey? “
NonTrin:
The logic is staggering! His original argument was that an angel couldn’t come with “all the angels” because he would be coming with himself. Yet when we see numerous instances where one man of Israel (whether a king, priest or judge) comes with “all the men of Israel” and it is obvious the king, priest or judge is still a man in Israel, Leroy resorts to creating a fictitious scenario of humans and donkeys!
I simply answered your ridiculous comparision “in kind”.
Here is my original argument NonTrin.
Mat. 25:31

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


All the angels would include Michael, did he return with himself?
Upon his resurrection, when Jesus became Michael the Archangel again, why doesn’t it say Michael the Archangel shall come in his glory? It does say that all the angels will worship him;
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
There might be an exception to all, I’m not sure if the angels that are cast into hell would worship him
Also the Bible states Jesus Christ, not Michael is gone into heaven, angels subject unto him.
The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
Why would God refer to Michael the Archangel, using his name prior to his birth, as Jesus then call him Jesus, but after his death when he reverted back to Michael the Archangel and referred to as such in the last days (1 Thes 4:16) say that Jesus Christ is in heaven setting on the throne?


I’m trying to be nice but this is quite difficult. Was not his original argument that one could not come with ‘all of his kind’ because he would be coming with himself? And do not the scriptures show this logic to be false? So where did the different natures come into play of that between a human and a donkey? He is obviously trying to say Jesus’ nature is different from an angels (though nothing in scripture say that) but I didn’t use the verse “Jesus comes with all the angels” to prove Jesus had the same nature as angels. I didn’t say ‘Moses coming with all the donkey’s proves Moses is a donkey’ either. I simply said that ‘Jesus coming with all the angels’ no more proves he is not an angel than saying ‘Gideon and all the men of Israel went to war’ means Gideon was not a man in Israel. Leroy’s phenomenal hermeneutics has caused him to create an fictitious argument of which no one argued and of which is irrelivent to the discussion!
Some of your statements are like brain novocain, do you do this on purpose prior to twisting some doctrine into ones head to ease the pain?


Even more brilliant is Leroy’s response to this statement by me regarding this point: “Does this mean Moses is not a man of Israel? (and feel free to replace the term Moses with Joshua, Gideon, so on and so forth.)”
Leroy replies with this statement” “I’ll replace it with Ruth, does your point still hold?”

Well Leroy, I am not aware of any verse that says ‘Ruth gathered all the women of Moabite’ but if there was one I would say it does hold. Whereas from what I’ve seen from your deductive reasoning you would argue Ruth was not a Moabite. The desperation is setting in. Do you actually think out your replies before you type them out?
Instead of saying one thing then doing another, way don’t you replace the term “Moses”, so on and so forth, with my choice, “Ruth”?
Here is your sentence in which you asked me to give you any replacement:
[NonTrinitarian]
1.)Is there any verse(s) in the Bible that says something like ‘Moses and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…?’[/quote]

Here is the sentence with my chosen replacement;

“Ruth and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…

[NonTrinitarian]
2.)If there is, does this mean Moses is not a man of Israel? (and feel free to replace the term Moses with Joshua, Gideon, so on and so forth.)[/quote]

And my final answer is yes, this means that Ruth is clearly not a man! There is a clear distension between Ruth and man, as clear as Jesus and angels.

Your debate tactics are a little dodgy, I don’t know if you mean them to be that way.
You see what you want to see NonTrin, I don’t doubt you believe that, scripture is just making it hard for you to confirm that.



Yeah, that’s what I meant. Here, start with #1.
“15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.



Now ask yourself Leroy,

1.)Did the Jews who asked the question think Jesus was God?

2.)Did Jesus’ reply cause them to think he was God?

3.)Did Jesus say he was God or separate himself from God?

4.)If you had been there would you have walked away from this saying thinking that Jesus was God?


I think you should start another thread if you want to go into this, this thread already has it’s fair share of rabbit holes.

[Trout]

Do you mean that I should cut out Matthew 24:36 and paste it over my eyes, is that how you get around this verse?

:lmbo::oooo::lol2:

[NonTrinitarian]

The most obvious denial is your refusing to see that Michael refered the rebuke to the Lord And the most obvious blunder is your assuming the term “Lord” refers to Jesus.

You said it NonTrin, “Michael was not the Messiah when he was arguing with Satan about Moses’ body…”
I wholeheartedly agree!! And Jesus wasn’t the Messiah either at that point in time. You probably don’t even know what the term Messiah means.

The only dead body that didn’t last was Jesus’! Lazarus and the widows son rose from the dead, prior to Jesus’ resurrection only to return to the grave, Jesus went to the throne. Rambling about irrelevant stuff does not help your cause.

Is that your guess? Tell me NonTrin, what do you base this guess on, can you point to a scripture dating the argument over Moses’ body or is it just convenient to your point to say “long before Jesus came to the earth” to make your point? John 11:39 says the body is already decaying at four days. You tell me how long ago Satan and Michael had this discussion. This is like arguing with a child.

How did you come to this conclusion, by jumping? I never said Jesus came to the Earth just to die. Either your reading comprehension is pour or you have no answer to my question and resort to this dodge. You’re the one that said Jesus didn’t act as a savior until his death. I was just pointing out your error.



And your point is what? Jesus created before his baptism, that was pretty incredible, is that un-important? I fail to see any connection at all between this and Jude 1:9

Scripture Verse:

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"



It makes no sense NonTrin, If you say the Lord and Michael are the same, simply replace the Lord in the verse above with Michael; “But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, " I’ll will rebuke you later punk, after I become Jesus and get baptized” That you fail to see the connection with much of anything is not surprising. You are referencing an account that happened 2000 years before Jesus came to the earth in support of Michael not taking action against Satan, all the while, even after I’ve mentioned it for three times now, the account in Revelation 12 where Michael kicks Satan out of heaven. Why don’t you try reconciling those verses instead of repeating Jude like a broken record? And while your at it, ask yourself why you automatically replace the term Lord with Jesus when it is applied to God the Father numerous times in scripture.

I don’t see any connection between this [Daniel’s prophecy about 70 weeks) and Michael not daring to pronounce against Satan a railing judgement. If you didn’t see the connection between the sun and light it wouldn’t surprise me. I was pointing out that the Messiah was not prophesied to arrive UNTIL his baptism. Which goes back to the point that Jesus [or Michael] was not the Messiah until after Jesus’ baptism. But I’m sure that sentence went over your head too. You probably don’t even know what the 70 weeks prophecy is about.

So, you think Jude 1:9 is a theory? No. Jude 1:9 is a fact that happened thousands of years earlier. The theory you have is that this means Michael [or Jesus] couldn’t later rebuke Jesus but Revelation 12 squashes that one.

What part of did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment don’t you understand? What part of tossing Satan out of heaven don’t you understand? This is to easy.

It was? Your answer “how long does a dead body last” ….Hmm, how old are those mummies, they are still dead aren’t they? What part of your above statement was the answer, can you give me more then an assumption, how about a verse? Yeah, I’m sure when Moses died Satan had no interest in his body but thousands of years later he was. Your fellow Trinitarians must be proud of your logic.

I have the same thing, I don’t see where it says Jesus’ time to act against the Pharisees was not appointed until after his baptism. (shaking my head in disgust) Why don’t you show me where Jesus took action against them before his baptism? And explain how he could take action as the Messiah before the 69 weeks of years in Daniel were fulfilled.

Your apparent dodge of the fact that Michael didn’t dare announce a railing judgement on Satan, but referred to the Lord to do so, tells me you are not very comfortable with this verse and choice to ignore it.
Did it ever occur to you that Michael, not wanting to act on his own referred to the Lord at one point and with the Lord’s blessings acted after? Or is that such a stretch that it is inconceivable to you? If I say I don’t dare to rebuke someone, but I will say the Lord rebuke you, am I saying after my baptism I will rebuke you or am I saying that I will leave it to the Lord to cast judgement on you? If the Lord then tells me to rebuke someone and I will, am I assuming I have the power to judge in and of myself or is that power coming through the authority that the Lord has given me? I’m very comfortable with the scripture. You just have a problem of reading Jesus into the word Lord. Furthermore, since I said that it wasn’t time for Michael to act against Satan WHENEVER it was they were discussing the body but then later he kicks him out of heaven, the element of time is obviously the key factor. And you haven’t really demonstrated Jesus rebuking Satan. If your idea of rebuking is “go away” then you have a pretty pathetic understanding of the term “rebuke”

you asked why the scriptures don’t say “Jesus is Michael”. I ask why the scriptures don’t say “God is a Trinity” or “God is a multi-personality being”? Answer those and you’ll have my answer as well.



In Col 1:15 the term “first born” does not always mean literally the first one born. Compare Gen 41:51-52 with Jer 31:9, In Gen. Joseph’s firstborn was Manasseh, his second born was Ephraim, in Jer. this order is reversed. In some cases this term “first born” is used in the context of culture, meaning preeminence, preeminent one or son.
Reading Colossians 1:15 in the light of verses 16 and 17 makes it all to clear that Jesus was the preeminent. I tell you what. You show me ONE verse where the person is called the firstborn and is not part of the group he is firstborn of and I will become a Trinitarian. Just one. You better get some more examples though. I’m not using Col 1:15 to show Jesus was the firstborn (though I think he was). I am using to show he is part of the group he is fortborn over. So even if you stick to your preeminent definition, Jesus is still part of the group of creation he is preeminient over. Good luck finding a use of firstborn where the firstborn is not part of the group. You’re gonna need it!

Of course later you try to get around this by claiming Jesus is unique. How nice. Not only have you thrown all logic out the window (like saying Jesus can stand next to God and still be God) but you’ve now decided to throw out all known definitions for a word and based your doing so on Jesus’ being unique. This is pathetic, remind me to put you on ignore when I’m doing replying.

no-trin, if you don’t see it I can’t make you see it. Nice back out.

Okay I’ve got Matthew 24:36 pasted on my forehead, but I still read Hebrews 13:8 as “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” deflating your theory that Jesus was Michael and changed to Jesus and then to Michael again. Do you mean that I should cut out Matthew 24:36 and paste it over my eyes, is that how you get around this verse? You asked “Gave up his Godly prerogatives? When did that happen? If you believe that just cut Heb 13:8 out of your Bible.”

God is all knowing. Is that what Matt 24:36 says? No. Trinitarians (most, not the heretics like you) readily agree Jesus gave up some divine prerogatives when he became a man. (Phil 2:5,6) Zheesh. Do I have to teach you about the Trinity now?

Proverbs 8 is talking about wisdom and doing so in the female gender this is not messianic. Why don’t you take that up with the scores of Trinitarians at Tweb who would call you wrong on this point? I’m not going to debate it because you’re too ignorant on the subject. Get some better Trinitarian books besides Robert Morey and Ron Rhodes.



Regarding Heb 1:5 you said:

Okay is that my penance for asking a question that you can’t answer? Now go ahead and answer it! I did a few threads up to TwoHumble. If you’re too lazy to scroll up and read it I’m not concerned if you don’t get it. There are others reading this who will see what I’ve already said and well leave you to yourself thinking you’ve won.

Also the Bible states Jesus Christ, not Michael is gone into heaven, angels subject unto him.

1 Pet 3:21-22

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

And yet we have numerous scriptures where it says men are subject to a human king. I suppose you’re going to tell me the human king is not a man?


Why would God refer to Michael the Archangel, using his name prior to his birth, as

Jesus then call him Jesus, but after his death when he reverted back to Michael the Archangel and referred to as such in the last days (1 Thes 4:16) say that Jesus Christ is in heaven setting on the throne? Finally a good question. It was to tie together the numerous prophecies in Daniel 12 regarding Michael with the numerous prophecies with Jesus. Rev 12 is the beginning of Daniel 12.

Instead of saying one thing then doing another, way don’t you replace the term “Moses”, so on and so forth, with my choice, “Ruth”?
Here is your sentence in which you asked me to give you any replacement:
[NonTrinitarian]
1.)Is there any verse(s) in the Bible that says something like ‘Moses and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…?’

Here is the sentence with my chosen replacement;

“Ruth and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…

[NonTrinitarian]
2.)If there is, does this mean Moses is not a man of Israel? (and feel free to replace the term Moses with Joshua, Gideon, so on and so forth.)
And my final answer is yes, this means that Ruth is clearly not a man! There is a clear distension between Ruth and man, as clear as Jesus and angels.

Your debate tactics are a little dodgy, I don’t know if you mean them to be that way.
You see what you want to see NonTrin, I don’t doubt you believe that, scripture is just making it hard for you to confirm that. Ahh, I thought this was what you were doing in the last thread but I wasn’t sure so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now you have confirmed it. You have resorted to circular reasoning. Since the discussion is on whether Jesus is an angel, you cannot use your conclusion (he is not an angel) to rebut an argument that he is. Let me spell it out in simpler terms using your example.

Say we were arguing whether or not Ruth was a man. Say I said she was. Your argument would be a verse says “Ruth and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…”. You would then say “How can Ruth be a man when the scriptures say all the men came with her? Did she come with herself?” I would then point out numerous other scriptures that said “Moses and all the men of Israel yada yada yada…” to show you that your argument is bogus. You’re reply is ‘But Ruth is a woman so they’re not the same type!’

Leroy, do you see the flaw? Your argument was your conclusion, which hadn’t been proven yet. Your ONLY defense was to introduce a different type into the sentence (Substituting a woman for a man). But you have yet to prove Jesus was a different type from the angels. That is the question at hand. You automatically assume Jesus is a different type from the angels in an effort to ba able to hold on to your original argument which was shown to be quite flawed. You can’t use your conclusion to refute an argument since the argument is questioning your conclusion. Might want to brush up on some logic classes.


Yeah, that’s what I meant. Here, start with #1.
“15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” 16 Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality. 18 He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.



Now ask yourself Leroy,

1.)Did the Jews who asked the question think Jesus was God?

2.)Did Jesus’ reply cause them to think he was God?

3.)Did Jesus say he was God or separate himself from God?

4.)If you had been there would you have walked away from this saying thinking that Jesus was God?




I think you should start another thread if you want to go into this, this thread already has it’s fair share of rabbit holes. Nice dodge. You asked for it and then when I give it you run away. How typical.

[twohumble]

quick question for you Nontrin on Jesus Vs Michael being "worshipped"? You said to Leroy the following:
Jesus isn't worshipped either unless you make him worshipped. You choose to translate proskyneo as worship only when it suits you.
Are you saying the the NWT never translates proskyneo as 'worship'? Could the JW's, and the Watchtower be the one guilty of selectively translating this word as they see fit? Christ was indeed worshipped, in every way you can conceive of worship. Michael is not.

[Leroy]

remind me to put you on ignore when I’m doing replying.

Did you mean done?

Here is your reminder NonTrin.

[Trout]

NonTrin,

I don't quite understand many of the points you're trying to make, but I think you are saying that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are one and the same?

I think it's fine for you to believe that, but to try to make your case from scripture is futile.

Carefully read Leroy's posts and you'll see that in fact Jesus and the Archangel Michael aren't the same. Leroy has done a thorough job of explaining that.

So please, if you want to believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus are the same go ahead and do so, but don't claim that the Bible indicates that, because clearly from what the Bible says they are not the same.

Good job Leroy, you have proven your case beyond the shadow of a doubt. :thumb:

[Leroy]

According to the WTS they once taught the second presence of Christ started in 1874 (WT, 11/1/22, pgs 332-337; Prophecy, 1929, pg 65-66)

The WTS once taught that: The second presence of Christ started in 1874 (WT, 11/1/22, pgs 332-337; Prophecy, 1929, pg 65-66), also the Finished Mystery, the 7th of a study in the scriptures series published in 1917 and was the major publication of the WTS, taught that Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, and the Almighty of Rev 1:8 (pg 15), that Christ established a "Church" (pg 17), that Christ returned invisibly in 1874 (pg 54, 60, 68) that Michael is the Pope of Rome and the angels are his bishops (pg 188)

According to “you Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, (a WTS book) Bible evidence shows in the year 1914 C.E. God’s time arrived for Christ to return and start ruling also it says “In the same way, Christ’s return does not mean that he literally comes back to this earth. Rather, it means that he takes Kingdom power toward this earth and turns his attention to it”
1Cor 11:26 “for as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives” If Christ’s’ second presence in 1874, and arrived 1914, why do JW’s continue to partake of the bread and wine, shouldn’t it have stopped in 1914?

If Jesus is Michael, then Jesus then Michael then the Pope of Rome, then Jesus second presence, then Michael in Rev 12…Who’s on first, What’s on second and I don’t know’s on Third.

[twohumble]

Jesus isn't worshipped either unless you make him worshipped. You choose to translate proskyneo as worship only when it suits you.

Nontrin. I will be glad to list all of the times 'proskyneo' is rendered as 'worship' in the Watchtowers Kingdom Interlinear. You will be (or maybe not) surprised to know that the JW's translate this Greek word to be "worship" way more than they translate it to be anything else. Another interesting point is that practically the only time the Interlinear does NOT translate it as 'worship' is when it applies to Jesus (one time to peter it was not translated as worship and another two, or so, in generic use). Do you find this particularly telling and a sure sign of selective translation? I do. To be specific, the Watchtower Kingdom Interlinear has the word 'proskyneo' appear 55 times, and all but those three times in generic passages, the word is translated as 'worship'. 15 times it is used in relation to Jesus and it is translated as 'obeisance'. Funny how that 'selective translation' thing works hu?

[NonTrinitarian]

NonTrin,

I don't quite understand many of the points you're trying to make, but I think you are saying that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are one and the same?Yep, me and a lot of Trinitarians. Only they still believe Jesus is God.

I think it's fine for you to believe that, but to try to make your case from scripture is futile.I provided 12 points that suggest they are the same. Why don't you refute them as Leroy certainly hasn't.

Carefully read Leroy's posts and you'll see that in fact Jesus and the Archangel Michael aren't the same. Leroy has done a thorough job of explaining that.Carefully read leroy's posts? He doesn't say anything accept keep repeating Jude over and over like a broken record. And his argument from Jude is squashed when we consider that Jesus also didn't do any rebuking until after his baptism and Michael did far more than rebuke Satan in Revelation. How does ignoring all of the other arguments and repeating his own make his writings so convincing?

So please, if you want to believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus are the same go ahead and do so, but don't claim that the Bible indicates that, because clearly from what the Bible says they are not the same.

Good job Leroy, you have proven your case beyond the shadow of a doubt. :thumb:Then why don't you respond to the 12 points that show Jesus to be Michael? Leroy obviously can't so maybe you can do better? At least I don't ignore Leroy's arguments. I answered them. Where did he answer my 12 points? This is your idea of proving a case beyond a shadow of a doubt? By ignoring the opposing arguments? You're a good cheerleader for Leroy but not much of an apologist.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin. I will be glad to list all of the times 'proskyneo' is rendered as 'worship' in the Watchtowers Kingdom Interlinear. You will be (or maybe not) surprised to know that the JW's translate this Greek word to be "worship" way more than they translate it to be anything else. Another interesting point is that practically the only time the Interlinear does NOT translate it as 'worship' is when it applies to Jesus (one time to peter it was not translated as worship and another two, or so, in generic use). Do you find this particularly telling and a sure sign of selective translation? I do. To be specific, the Watchtower Kingdom Interlinear has the word 'proskyneo' appear 55 times, and all but those three times in generic passages, the word is translated as 'worship'. 15 times it is used in relation to Jesus and it is translated as 'obeisance'. Funny how that 'selective translation' thing works hu?
TwoHumble, I'm going to open a new thread on this one as it's off the subject a little.

[freelight]

Greetings all,


Much debating over the technicalities of the Christ/Michael controversy. By definition.....the name of Micheal can be attributed to Jesus...as he is one 'who is like God/Elohim'. In likeness and personality.....Jesus shares many affinities with arch-angel Michael. Our big quandary lies in the question, 'are they the same being/person?'. Of course the orthodox insist not...... not only because they hold Jesus is God...but Jesus is a Man and not of the angel-class. Therefore he is quite distinct/seperate from Michael(as Jesus being God created Micheal).

To the orthodox who hold that Christ is Micheal.....yet still hold that Jesus is God...they still have problems in meshing all this in with the metaphysics of the Trinity. So much depends on the belief that Jesus is God...or that he is not God...in the conclusions.

I would say that Christ and Michael share very much the same or similar spiritual ministries. Christ and Michael are divine associates - the are coordinate forces in the government of God. I prefer this view and honor both Christ and Michael as co-servants.

Nontrin has so far offered many logics to support his view in the face of the orthodox suppositions relative to the Trinity. I do not adopt all the teachings of the WTS neither am I a J-dub,....however I tend to be more arian and a unitarian in my views of the Trinity and the relationship of the Father and Son.
Christ as a pre-existing personality(before matter-ial creation) is still referred to as the 'beginning of the creation of God'. This divine logos/personality, the personification of Wisdom....is still the vehicle thru which YHWH created/creates all things. Because the Logos is the firstborn personification of Deity.....he is by virtue of generation...divine. Thru the Logos....God brings forth all things eternally....as such is the divine order.

It is only the insistence of making Jesus into God/God the Son in the Trinity formula...that causes problems for the orthodox in their zeal for theological correctness. When we see that Jesus is not God, but His Son and the First-generation of His Being thru which He creates all things....we can relax some of the unnecessary tensions involved with Trinity presumptions.

Jesus remains as Michaelohim....for he truly is like God - the express image of his person...the Firstborn/generation.
The archangel Michael works with the office of the Christ in the programs of God....amid the hosts of YHWH. I see them as seperate distinct persons in certain situtations....yet also as one in others. Since I see the Trinity as primarily 'conceptual' and God as ONE....both are one spirit with God and serve in their respective offices.

In all the major triumps of Gods victory in the Universe....Christ stands as the Ultimate Victor, King, Regent of YHWH, Lord of hosts, Redeemer, Savior. Michael is heralded right along with the Christ as Prince of Israel, Arch-angel of the Lord, Warrior-prince, defender of truth, Protector of the saints. In both ....YHWH Elohim is glorified and thru them....he performs his will.





paul

[twohumble]

Greetings all,


Much debating over the technicalities of the Christ/Michael controversy. By definition.....the name of Micheal can be attributed to Jesus...as he is one 'who is like God/Elohim'. In likeness and personality.....Jesus shares many affinities with arch-angel Michael. Our big quandary lies in the question, 'are they the same being/person?'. Of course the orthodox insist not...... not only because they hold Jesus is God...but Jesus is a Man and not of the angel-class. Therefore he is quite distinct/seperate from Michael(as Jesus being God created Micheal).

To the orthodox who hold that Christ is Micheal.....yet still hold that Jesus is God...they still have problems in meshing all this in with the metaphysics of the Trinity. So much depends on the belief that Jesus is God...or that he is not God...in the conclusions.

I would say that Christ and Michael share very much the same or similar spiritual ministries. Christ and Michael are divine associates - the are coordinate forces in the government of God. I prefer this view and honor both Christ and Michael as co-servants.

Nontrin has so far offered many logics to support his view in the face of the orthodox suppositions relative to the Trinity. I do not adopt all the teachings of the WTS neither am I a J-dub,....however I tend to be more arian and a unitarian in my views of the Trinity and the relationship of the Father and Son.
Christ as a pre-existing personality(before matter-ial creation) is still referred to as the 'beginning of the creation of God'. This divine logos/personality, the personification of Wisdom....is still the vehicle thru which YHWH created/creates all things. Because the Logos is the firstborn personification of Deity.....he is by virtue of generation...divine. Thru the Logos....God brings forth all things eternally....as such is the divine order.

It is only the insistence of making Jesus into God/God the Son in the Trinity formula...that causes problems for the orthodox in their zeal for theological correctness. When we see that Jesus is not God, but His Son and the First-generation of His Being thru which He creates all things....we can relax some of the unnecessary tensions involved with Trinity presumptions.

Jesus remains as Michaelohim....for he truly is like God - the express image of his person...the Firstborn/generation.
The archangel Michael works with the office of the Christ in the programs of God....amid the hosts of YHWH. I see them as seperate distinct persons in certain situtations....yet also as one in others. Since I see the Trinity as primarily 'conceptual' and God as ONE....both are one spirit with God and serve in their respective offices.

In all the major triumps of Gods victory in the Universe....Christ stands as the Ultimate Victor, King, Regent of YHWH, Lord of hosts, Redeemer, Savior. Michael is heralded right along with the Christ as Prince of Israel, Arch-angel of the Lord, Warrior-prince, defender of truth, Protector of the saints. In both ....YHWH Elohim is glorified and thru them....he performs his will.

paul

Paul, you have offered an interesting approach to this, however you neglect the antinomy that exists in scripture. I would call it a paradox, but it really is an issue of facts and not verbage. What support to you offer that they could be of the same essence? Certainly the idea of "sonship" carries the idea of one of the same essence. To attribute "timeliness" to the essence of one not bound by time appears foolishness, and is what is needed in order to make any temporal sense out of "first born". By not attributing a temporal aspect to this term, we see it as a term of authority, which is what it was always intended in the first place.

Jesus and Michael are totally distinct in essence, as Paul points out rather succinctly.

[freelight]

Paul, you have offered an interesting approach to this, however you neglect the antinomy that exists in scripture. I would call it a paradox, but it really is an issue of facts and not verbage. What support to you offer that they could be of the same essence? Certainly the idea of "sonship" carries the idea of one of the same essence. To attribute "timeliness" to the essence of one not bound by time appears foolishness, and is what is needed in order to make any temporal sense out of "first born". By not attributing a temporal aspect to this term, we see it as a term of authority, which is what it was always intended in the first place.

Jesus and Michael are totally distinct in essence, as Paul points out rather succinctly.

Greetings twohumble,

I would not necessarily say or have I implied that Christ and Michael are of the same essence (as the Father and the Son are of the same essence in the Trinity-view) - they are coordinate beings in the service of Living Father.

Concerning the Sonship of Jesus the Christ....the idea of one of the same essence is more of an imposed 'idea' implemented by the Trinity logic. If a presupposition of Jesus being God or God the Son within a Trinity was not held....then an idea of Jesus being one of the same essence with God would not be so entertained. As far as Jesus bearing or having an essence of God.....all sons of God bear and have an essence of God by virtue of being and by generation(sonship).

As far as Jesus being the Firstborn; we see he is the firstborn among many brethren; the firstborn over all creation; the firstborn from the dead; the beginning of the creation of God. 'Firstborn' implies a term of authority or preeminence, headship, leadership.......yet also applies to generation - this is a birthing and designation of being called a Son or The Son by virtue of being born(this thru actual original genesis as an entity/being before incarnation and during the events of his baptism and resurrection).

One cannot seperate or disclude a sense of temporality from the term 'Son' or 'begotten' which implies generation by defintion. If the Son is begotten then such implies a generation in time, in eternity. Accordingly...then Christ as beginning of the creation of God, the firstborn over all creation,....is still ancestor of all creation as co-creator or the creative agency thru which God made all things. Christ forever maintains his preeminence as the Beginning and End of all Gods works. He is the Alpha and Omega...all things starting and ending with-in Him...the Firstborn/generation.

Yes,.....as shared before....Jesus and Michael are distinct beings in one viewship.......yet in other ways they are coordinated as being like one another....like Elohim. I am geared to exalt both in their respective spheres......and let their glory speak for themselves. The technicalities are often engaged by trinitarians/unitarians and others...between the two......yet I propose a versatility of spiritual understanding of Christ and Michael. Each are different yet also alike.

A final note on the begotten Son of God. In an effort to combat arianism....the orthodox invented the idea of Jesus being 'eternally begotten of the Father'........as opposed to just 'begotten of the Father' - the issue was to cancel out any idea of temporality or Christs generation in time....hence it was proposed that Jesus is an eternally begotten Deity! - essentially a begotten God (the only begotten Deity within the Trinity).
Most of this is resolved when one views Jesus as divine but not God....and the Trinity is not so upheld and guarded as a divine truth(it serves more as a conceptual reference). Then Jesus maintains as the Christ, the 'Son' of the living God. His unity with the Logos or as the Logos of God is maintained....as the Word of life.......existing in the beginning with-in God....coming forth by divine generation at a certain place in time, in the eternal past. As the Logos was born as a definitive intelligence and perfection....it then served as a creative vehicle thru which all creation followed.
The birth of the Man Jesus and the times of his baptism and resurrection....were also generations - His sonship was affirmed at his baptism and confirmed/sealed at his resurrection. 'Son' always implies one who came from a seed, one begotten. I hold both the temporal and eternal aspect of Christs sonship for in His generations we behold and realize our own sonship. Sonship is timal and eternal.




paul

[twohumble]

Greetings twohumble,



Concerning the Sonship of Jesus the Christ....the idea of one of the same essence is more of an imposed 'idea' implemented by the Trinity logic. If a presupposition of Jesus being God or God the Son within a Trinity was not held....then an idea of Jesus being one of the same essence with God would not be so entertained. As far as Jesus bearing or having an essence of God.....all sons of God bear and have an essence of God by virtue of being and by generation(sonship).

Hello again
Sonship and 'one of the same essence' is not just an impostion of scripture on the term, but an inherent part of "son". Remeber that scripture does a thorough job of deliniating the difference in our "sonship" as "adopted sons" and not begotten sons. Humans beget humans, and so on. Humans create machines. Clearly the "stuff" of machines is different than the nature of man, and the essence of the Creator is always of "different stuff" than the creation. Begetting is a term denoting the "same stuff". Natural sonship, as Jesus claims, is a term that inherently demonstrates "essence" and not temporal relationship. I understand that we disagree here, and in all respect, I must say that it seems clear to me that the impostion is the use of any "temporal" aspect to the term 'son'. The repeated context of scripture in relation to the term "son" is to denote both authority, and nature and linage.

[Cherith]

If the Archangel Michael is Jesus, why didn’t he bring judgment onto Satan?

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Jesus clearly has authority to rebuke Satan.:huh:

Then Jesus *said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.' "


Why did Michael refuse to rebuke Satan in Jude when Jesus clearly did so in Matthew? :shrug:

Perhaps it was because in the process of TIME Christ had NØT YET accomplished redemption for His people. Or it chould simply mean that He refused to rail against/slander the enemy because as the God-Man this is not His Nature.

[Krusader]

The story of Michael the Archangel disputing with Satan about the body of Moses is from an apocraphyl Jewish book. In that account, it is the angel Michael that is clearly in view. Jewish angelology did not teach that Michael was to be compared with the YHWH of Scripture.

The Book of Revelation certainly makes a distinction between Michael and Jesus. After all, we don't have John saying, "even so, come Lord Michael!"

[Cherith]

The Book of Revelation certainly makes a distinction between Michael and Jesus. After all, we don't have John saying, "even so, come Lord Michael!"

Well, I can certainly understand why you could make that claim; however, one could easily answer that to refer to "Jesus" prior to His actually being born and named "Jesus" would be anachronistic. Therefore, it would be perfectly logical to refer to the pre-incarnate Son of God with a name/title such as the rhetorical "Who is like God?" that the Hebrew "Michael" conveys. The same argument of being anachronistic holds true for John referring to Jesus as "Michael" after His advent.

Blessings,
--C

[Krusader]

The point is, if Jesus was the pre-incarnate Michael, the Bible would clearly state as much. It does not. I'll stick with the orthodox view.

[Sparko]

Does anyone else realize you are arguing about Jesus being an angel when the topic of this thread seems to be "Michael the Arch Angle?"

how many degrees?