Jesus the archangel Michael? No.

by mdb 30 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • mdb

    Jesus the archangel Michael?

    1 Thess 4:16 (Daniel 10:13)

    The Watchtower teaches that Michael is the only archangel (Aid To Bible Understanding). They say that since Christ returns “with the voice of an archangel” (1 Thess 4:16), this means he is the archangel Michael.

    Logically then, we can also say that since Jesus also returns with the trumpet of God, that makes him God. A person can not use only the portion of the verse which, stripped from its context, supports one’s view. I don’t believe that having God’s trumpet alone means Jesus is God because Christ’s deity is proved in many other passages. However, the Watchtower’s reasoning here in this verse to support their belief that Jesus was the archangel Michael is in error.

    Nowhere in the bible does it say or conclusively hint of Jesus being the archangel Michael. In John 3:16, the Greek word monogenes is used to describe Jesus, which means: unique, one of a kind. In Daniel 10:13, it says that Michael was one of the chief princes. Michael is one among equals and therefore not unique (as the Watchtower states in their book Aid To Bible Understanding). Besides, Jesus is never called a "chief prince" in the Scriptures and His superiority over the angels is written of in Heb 1:5-2:18.

    What other Scriptural proof (or attempt) does the Watchtower use to try and support their doctrine?

  • sinis

    I know the book of Enoch speaks of the arch angels and it lists, I believe, 4 by name. Basically they are high up on the chain of command but Micheal is not Jesus. Bible indicates that god did not call any of the angels his son. So if Christ created all things through god, why would he create equals to himself (other archangels).

  • Elsewhere

    Sadly, many also conclude that Donal Duck and Daffy Duck are one and the same because they are both ill-tempered, have the last name "Duck" and share the same first initial.

    Very very sad so many are deceived by the Great and Evil Stan.

  • Star Moore
    Star Moore

    Hey there, In Dan. 12:1. It states that Michael, the great prince will stand up in behalf of his people. What if the reason he only has 'an archangel's voice' is because he returns as a human in human form and not as a spirit or angel form? Don't you think it's going to be Jesus who stands up for his people in the time of the end? And also who battles the devil..?

  • Clam

    Yes and No. Forget the Trinity - it's a kind of Holy Quartet with Mike being the fourth player. He is not to be confused with the character portrayed by John Travolta either.

  • leastone


  • heathen

    leastone --- what say you just copy and paste on the site instead of those type of links ?

    I think it's obvious that jesus was not the God of Israel . He never claimed to be but he did claim he came from heaven so the only logical conclusion is that he was an angel . I think arch angel michael is a likely choice but there is not evidence that says that he was jesus other than Daniel 12 which states arch angel michael stands up at the time that the dead are resurrected but again that's not saying he is jesus .

  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    Writing in the "Aid" book pg 1152, the writer, evidently Ray Franz, uses the quote at Dan 12:1 as "proof" that Michael = Jesus. The verse tells us that "at that time [according to WTS theology in Oct, 1914] Michael will STAND UP" That expression "Stand up" has great significance for the WTS leadership in that the writer of the "Aid" article makes it mean "To rule" [in the book of Daniel, anyway]

    A brief consultation of some of the finest minds devoted to the study of the Hebrew words of the OT elicits the following information [The Theological Wordbook of the OT by Harris Archer and Waltke, Heb Lexicon by Gesenius, Dictionary of OT theology, Keil and Delitz, Heb Commentary of the OT]:

    The word for "stand" as used in Dan 12:1 is the Heb/Chaldee "Amad" and can have the following 9 meanings in the 500+ times it is used in the OT:

    1 To stand [as in the physical act opposed to sitting]

    2 To arise as from a sitting position

    3 To stand [guard} NASV Dan 12:1

    4 To stand before [someone as in supplication] Abraham before Yahveh [ Gen 18:22] Joseph before Pharaoh [Ge 41:46] etc

    5 To stand before someone [as before Yahweh awaiting judgement] Deut 19:17, Jer 7:10

    6 To represent as at Ezra 10:4 [NWT has "act representatively" - the WTS position being - why use one word when we can complicate the issue by usingm two]

    7 To establish something

    8 To endure

    9 To build, set up something: A house [Ezra 2:68] A statue [2 Chron 33:19] etc

    As one can see, there are several possibilities inherent in the meaning of the word "Amad" - but sorry, no evidence that it can mean "to rule" - except in the distoted imaginations of the FDS - indeed that there is an undercurrent of servitude in the word mitigates against such a conclusion.

    Ah but you see, the FDS tells us, you have ignored the "symbolic" meaning. True "Amad" may not mean "to rule" but that is only literally. Symbolically, it can mean whatever we want it to mean. Have'nt you heard of the FDS principle called "The Chesire Cat Syndrome?" who said in that other Inspired work, "Alice In Wonderland" - "A word means whatever I choose it to mean, nothing more, nothing less" [I submit that if I make the word "name" mean "hate" then I can make the sentence, -My name is Jehovah into - My hate is jehovah, or even, I hate to be called jehovah, etc]

    The writer lists seven occurences of the word "Amad" in Daniel where it evidently "means" - "To rule" [8:22, 23, 11:2, 3, 7, 20, 21] A close look at these references shows that none of these instances makes any allusion to "rulership" in fact all they show is that they can sit as firmly as ever on the already established meanings of the word, as above. In Dan 11:3, for instance, a ''mighty king" is said to do two things, not one: "He will stand [pick any meaning above] AND he will rule"

    If the word "stand" means "to rule" in Dan 12:1, then it must do so a few verses later, in vs 13. Here it talks of Daniel "standing" This inevitably must lead to either one of two conclusions: That Michael has a co-ruler in his "kingdom" - the Heb prophet, Daniel, or that the teaching of the WTS regarding Michael - Jesus is an ingenious fraud deliberately perpetuated to demean the position and office of Christ


  • LittleToe

    Who are Michael's people, given that there was a Prince of Persia, too? Just Judah? All of the 12 tribes? Everyone who believes in Jesus?

    Daniel probably isn't a great book to centre your whole Christology on...

  • Star Moore
    Star Moore

    Yes, Little Toe, (who are Michael's people?) That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

Share this