Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • paradisebeauty

    @ leaving_quietly

    1 Thess 4:16 says "an archangel's voice", not "the archangel's voice", indicating more than one exists.
    Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the foremost princes", again, indicating more than one exists.

    you are so right!

  • nicolaou

    paradisebeauty, the Bible makes claims about the manner of Jesus birth, his parentage and his supposed pre-human existence. The debate about what the Bible actually says is a valid one but debating whether a human really did exist before his birth as an angel is ridiculous. How do you test any claim you make? What evidence can you bring to support your assertions?

    Is reality not welcome in these discussions?

  • paradisebeauty


    Of course it is all about reality.

    If you take the Bible as the foundation of your faith, the reality is in Hebrews 2:5 it clearly says that God did not put angels in charge of the world to come.

    Actually all chapter one and part of chapter 2, clearly says that Jesus is not an angel.

    So the Bible clearly says that Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. - this is one of the biggest flaws in the jw doctrine.

    As for the preexistence of Jesus, yes, indeed, there are verses that could be interpreted as pre human existence. But those verses can also mean a preexistence as the plan of God. There are also verses that can be interpreted as a preexistence of the anointed ones (christians).

    How about the verses that clearly talk about eternal fire? We all agree that eternal fire means destruction. Not literal eternal fire.

    The same with the preexistence of Jesus, it means preexistence as the plan of god.

    some other arguments are my comments above

    Some really good arguments are in the video of professor Anthony Buzzard, you can watch it if you didn't do it yet.

  • CalebInFloroda


    I'm Jewish so I don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. Also Jews don't base their beliefs on the Scriptures; the Scriptures are based on our beliefs. So I am neither arguing here for a belief in Jesus, Christianity, etc.

    The actual Christian teaching is that Jesus is the Incarnation of G-d, not an angel. The expression "son of God" in the New Testament in reference to Jesus is a Semitic expression which means "of the same cloth," similar to the English idioms, "spitting image" or "chip off the old block." The title "Son of God" in reference to Jesus expresses what is referred to as the Epiphany in Christianity: the realization that God was present in the Person of Jesus. The Epiphany is a teaching that predates any writings of the New Testament, though it is not an explicit teaching of the Trinity as it only deals with the identity of Jesus but not his nature or that of the Holy Spirit.

    The thread is here discussing whether the JW theology is compatible with this. The Witnesses believe that "Son of God" means what it does in English instead of what it means in Semitic idiom, namely "male offspring of God." Because of this anachronistic reading, the JWs have adopted the idea that Jesus as likely the archangel Michael.

    The question therefore is not whether the Bible's claim about Jesus is true, but whether or not the JW exegesis fits all of Chrstian theolog. Remember Christianity existed for at least 40 or 50 years before the first Gospel account was written. That is an entire generation or lifetime back then. There was already a living Christian theology and liturgy in place which affected how these texts were written. Like Judaism, the New Testament is not the basis for Christian claims, it is a reflection of them.

    As a Jew I have to admit that there is some historical basis for accepting that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. However because his followers defined him in terms of an Epiphany and the Incarnation, many Jews could not accept such views as this violated the Shema in their view. This rejection of Jesus as Messiah was pre-New Testament, not after the New Testament. The New Testament was neither the basis nor foundation of the stories about Jesus, the same stories which by the mid-first century had already been rejected by the Jewish community at large before being written.

    In conclusion, one cannot merely argue or try to prove the claims of New Testament Scripture in reference to Jesus. The origins of the claims about him are far more ancient. One needs to delve into the most ancient theology of the Church. Since it's claims about Jesus state that Christ is the Incarnation of YHWH, the Church expects the Epiphany to be accepted on the basis of faith, not evidence.

    The challenge of the Church is not whether there is empirical evidence for their claims, but rather will people put faith in what they have. The New Testament merely extended these claims into written form.

    Our disbelief in these aside, the point of thread is trying to show that the JW argument is flawed. Disbelief in spirits and deities is a conclusion, true, but not an efficacious means of examining their exegetical approach.

    Regardless what either you or I believe on the subject of Jesus or G-d, those things often have to be put aside to demonstrate other points at hand.

  • Vidqun

    Caleb, I'm really struggling with your logic here. As a Christian I believe in the OT and NT. Above is the totality of Biblical evidence. In addition, the Bible refers to specific ranks in heaven, e.g., angels, cherubs, seraphs, elders, etc. Can you see the dual function of Jesus and Michael? Can you see the overlap? The evidence is not clear cut at all.

    Would you be able to call out with an archangel’s voice if you’re not an archangel (meaning “a member of the higher ranks in the celestial hierarchy, chief angel, archangel,” according to BDAG)? According to the book of Enoch, there are four angels of senior rank, and according to Tobit, seven. Aforementioned Biblical books refer to only one, Michael.

    The majority of Christians do not want to equate Jesus with an angel because of Hebrews. Notice Hebrews 1:4 says: “he has become better than the angels…” But even if he did hold the rank of angel at one time, that has changed. He has received a promotion and now holds the rank of king. All the verses in Hebrews 1 point in this direction (future). As king he could be head or leader of the angels as Rev. 19 indicate? Michael seems to have the same function according to Rev. 12.

    And really, does “with the sound of God’s trumpet,” equate him with God? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I am sure as God’s designated king, he, that is God, would allow him to use his (God’s) trumpet on occasion. His voice might also sound like God's trumpet, still doesn't make him equal or the same as God.

    Leaving quietly, yes, I follow what you are saying, but I interpret the evidence differently. As has been mentioned, that is my privelege and I cannot be disfellowshipped twice. Phew! Hurray!

  • johnamos

    Vidqun, I was thinking the same thing in regards to the following:


    Caleb, I'm really struggling with your logic here.


    then the same logic would mean that you believe that Jesus is also the Almighty since Jesus has the control of and uses “God’s trumpet.


    really, does “with the sound of God’s trumpet,” equate him with God? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I am sure as God’s designated king, he, that is God, would allow him to use his (God’s) trumpet on occasion.


    1 Corinthians 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

    Thessalonians 16 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. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord.

    Mark 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Matthew 31 And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

  • jhine

    The WT chooses to ignore Hebrews 1 and 2 which clearly are teaching against the idea that Jesus was an Angel , I suspect written specifically to counter such such ideas . ( as already referenced above )

    It is strange that the WT bangs on about false teaching and apostacy coming into the church when they are actually perpetuating some of the original apostacy !

    As to Jesus coming into existence at birth that is not the teaching of the Early Church Fathers ( yes them again ) who are clear about His prehuman existence .

    John says " In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God ...................He was with God in the beginning .

    Through Him all things were made, Without Him nothing was made that has been made "

    1 John tells us " That which was from the beginning ..............this we proclaim concerning the Word of life ........and we proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and has appeared to us "

    Back to the gospel " The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us .We have seen this glory , the glory of THE ONE and ONLY who came from the Father full of grace and truth "

    So clearly the Word is Jesus who is the one and only , unique , and the word is ETERNAL , was with God in the beginning .

    Now the WT doctors the verse about ALL things being made by Him adding the word "other " before all so their version reads " through Him all other things were made " obviously including Jesus in with things that were made . John is actually at pains to say that Jesus was NOT created , he is emphatic that He made ALL things that were made .

    So Jesus could not be an angel and had existence before coming to earth as a man .


  • Vidqun
    Again, here I prefer evidence from the OT and NT. Micah 5:2 says he has an "origin" (see HALOT). Rev. 3:14 says he has had a "beginning." He is also referred as God's firstborn son, etc. (Col. 1:18; Hebr. 1:6). So I am not at all convinced that he was not an angel (literal meaning: "messenger") before. Jesus, as co-worker, is clearly subservient to his father the Creator (1 Cor. 15:25-28).
  • paradisebeauty

    @ jhine

    It depends on who you call the church fathers. Do you refer to the apostles or the "fathers of the church" that came after the apostles. If you refer to the apostles, they definitely have seen Jesus for what He was, a man not a God. They were Israelites and they believed in One God.

    Jesus himself said the most important law was: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, wthe Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ - this is known of the "shema" and is the creed of the Jewish faith.

    What Christianity today is failing is to see that the God of Christians is the same God the Israel has and Jesus is the Messiah that the Jewish people expect. Ask any Jew if they expect the Messiah to be God Himself or an incarnated angel.

    As for the word "word" in John ch. 1, I wonder if you consider that "word" also refers to Jesus in the following verse:

    Isaiah 55:11 - so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

    Jesus was so clear, He referred to Himself as the Son of Man so many times, how much clear could he have been?

    He also said He was the Son of God, and CalebInFlorida explained above what this expression means for a person of Jewish faith - a human son of God.

  • paradisebeauty

    @ Vidqun

    But even if he did hold the rank of angel at one time, that has changed. He has received a promotion and now holds the rank of king.

    This is another flaw in jw doctrine - the Bible clearly stated that after the sacrifice and resurrection Jesus was elevated to a higher rank, received a "promotion".

    But if Jesus was the first creation of God, in fact a co-creator, since all things were created through him, and after resurrection he turned back to life in heaven a became chef angel, what kind of promotion did he really receive. In jw view he already participated in the creation of the angels, he was already the first being created even before coming to earth.

    Also, jw's fail to recognize a very important theme in Paul's letter - the new creation. The idea of new creation, new man, an eternal, indestructible being that never existed before and was new, new created by God and Jesus at the resurrection became the first born of this kind of being. In colossians 1:18 he is also named the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

    Strangely, jw's admit that "anointed ones" will be a new creation. But there are so many verses that say the anointed ones will be made similar to or in the image of the resurrected Jesus. (2 cor 3:18, 1 cor 15:42-58, Romans 8:29, Romans 6:5). But still, jw's say Jesus was resurrected as an archangel, while the anointed ones will be a new creation.

    This can not be, if Jesus is an angel, anointed ones will also be angels, and here you come in contradiction with Hebrews 2:5 that is analyzed by prof. buzzard in the video above. - the usual circle "logic" of the jw doctrine...

Share this