Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?

by booker-t 251 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Happy Guy :)

  Ah thank you for finding one of the examples I was looking for Sabrina. (and thank you Blondie for originally introducing me to an online Bible a couple of weeks ago in one of your threads)

  I believe this actually is good evidence that Michael is not Jesus.

  Daniel 10:13 has been brought up as evidence that he is not: "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia..."

  "One of the Chief Princes" is a plural form. If there were only one chief it would read "Michael the Chief Prince".

  If it only said "One of the Princes" there would be no doubt that it would imply one of many princes. By the same token it says "One of the Chief Princes" which implies there are several princes with a very key designation or significance.

  I will give you an analogy: When there is an architectural project which has a number of architcts working on developing the project. While their might be a dozen or so architects working on a project their might be 3 chief architects. Hence the term "One of the Chief Architects of the project"

  So your example actually proves that Micheal is but one of several chief princes.

  The bible also is over a thousand pages - plenty of opportunity to say that Jesus is Michael if it were true.

  To indicate that they are not the same we have plenty of examples starting with yours:

  "There is no one with me who contends against these princes except Michael, your prince." Daniel 10: 21b

  Later in chapter 12 of Daniel this same Michael is described in this way: ""At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book."

  This is very significant in that it clearly refers to Michael as a "prince" and also "protector" wheras Jesus' title was much higher and greater than "Prince" or "Protector", Jesus was a "King":

  and asked, "Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We saw his star in the east (Matthew 2:2)

  Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. (Matthew 27:11)

  and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. (Matthew 27:29)

  Above his head they placed the written charge against him:|sc THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37)

  "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. (Mark 15:2)

  "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, (Mark 15:9)

  "What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them. (mark 15:12)

  And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" (Mark 15:18)

  The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Mark 15:26) The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. (Luke 7:3) So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. (Luke 23:3)
  
  and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself." (Luke 23:37) There was a written notice above him, which read:|sc THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Luke 23:38) Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" (John 18:33) Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36) But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"
  (John 18:39) and went up to him again and again, saying, "Hail, king of the Jews!" And they struck him in the face. (John 19:3) From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." (John 19:12) It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. (John 19:14) Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:|sc JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19:19) The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews." (John 19:21)
• 

  euripides

  Happy Guy, that the term Prince here is used to describe Michael in the book of Daniel is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it doesn't refer to Jesus: Jesus is described as a Prince throughout the New Testament... Here are all of KJV's use of the word Prince Mat 9:34 But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils. Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Mar 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Jhn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. Jhn 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. Jhn 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. Act 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, So Jesus might well have also been described as a king, but just because the term Prince is used does not necessarily show that Jesus is necessarily excluded. However, picking up on Sabrina's comments, I would like to add the following. Sabrina, it is possible to annotate what you have said to come up with the opposite conclusion, even as Happy Guy has. You wrote, "Who can be said to be one of the chief princes of the Jews and at the same time their deliverer?" Judas Maccabeus and his brothers; the Hasmoneans; the Chasidim from the period of the Maccabean crisis, the time period in which this text was written. The answer is Jesus only if you are providing, as I say, a theological answer rather than an historically accurate answer. You wrote "The Bible does not say Michael was one of the chief Archangels but rather it says, Michael is one of the chief princes, one of the chief rulers!" But see Jude 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!" Admittedly, this is a difficult passage for those who are squeamish about extracanonical texts, as this is a direct quote from the Assumption of Moses. You wrote, "But Michael as the Archangel, the chief angel, is the only archangel. He is also as Daniel 12 indicates the deliverer of his people at a time of great trouble or tribulation." There is no direct evidence to support that there is only one archangel. However, if you first believe that Jesus must be Michael then his singularity as archangel must follow.
• 

  heathen

  sabrina -- I really enjoyed your post and thought you made an excellent point .

  euripides--- Why ignore the fact that jude 9 clarifies the situation ? Michael is "the arch angel". it is singular not plural .
• 

  Kenneson

  Rev. 12:4-5 distinguishes the Messiah-child from Michael the archangel in verse 7. They are not one and the same.
• 

  Leolaia

  euripedes....Yes, if I were doing a complete search, I would of course look for other forms of plural arkhangelos other than the nominative, but to make my point I just needed to show that "archangel" does occur in the plural.

  heathen....The phrase Mikhaél ho arkhangelos in Jude 9 does not imply that there was only one archangel, anymore than Héródou tou basileós "of Herod the King" in Matthew 2:1 implies that the only king (in the world) was Herod. Thus, 1 Enoch names several archangels (cf. 9:1; 20:1-8), and yet refers to archangels individually like "Uriel the archangel" (79:6). And 1 Enoch is very relevant to Jude because Jude directly quotes 1 Enoch in v. 14-15 and is otherwise thoroughly influenced by the book.
• 

  Leolaia

  Just as an interesting aside, the Gospel of the Hebrews claims that Mary of Nazareth was Michael the Archangel.
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Hi Happy Guy,

  I like your screen name!

  "One of the Chief Princes" is a plural form. If there were only one chief it would read "Michael the Chief Prince". If it only said "One of the Princes" there would be no doubt that it would imply one of many princes. By the same token it says "One of the Chief Princes" which implies there are several princes with a very key designation or significance.

  I agree. This is why I wrote: "Just as King David was a chief prince or ruler over the Jews, his "son" Jesus was also a chief ruler over the Jews. Michael will always be regarded as one of the chief princes of the Jews because he was not their only prince or ruler. His ancestor David was also a chief ruler over them, as was Moses." In other words, Michael was a chief prince over the Jews since historically and religiously he was not their only one. Jesus was the last in the line of Kings not the only king of the Jews.

  Jesus' title was much higher and greater than "Prince" or "Protector", Jesus was a "King":

  Yet, Happy Guy, Isaiah 9:6 says: "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

  I think the evidence leans much more towards Jesus being Michael the Archangel than not. If Michael is not Jesus, then who is he? Who is this archangel who comes to Gabriel's assistance with such strength that Gabriel, stymied for 21 days, is then able to continue on his mission? Who is this archangel the great prince and protector of Daniel's people who arises or takes his stand in Daniel 12? Who is this archangel that along with his angels throws Satan himself out of heaven? I think it is reasonable to believe that since Jesus had a pre-human existence and since he was God's firstborn son and loved his Father so very much that he would be the one taking the lead in fighting against his Father's enemies in heaven.

  Hi Euripides,

  Sabrina, it is possible to annotate what you have said to come up with the opposite conclusion, even as Happy Guy has. You wrote, "Who can be said to be one of the chief princes of the Jews and at the same time their deliverer?" Judas Maccabeus and his brothers; the Hasmoneans; the Chasidim from the period of the Maccabean crisis, the time period in which this text was written. The answer is Jesus only if you are providing, as I say, a theological answer rather than an historically accurate answer.

  I was referring back to Daniel 12 which I had just quoted previous to my question: "Later in chapter 12 of Daniel this same Michael is described in this way: ""At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book." Michael would be their deliverer in the time of the end but of course as you rightly said there have been many deliverers of the Jews, also many "princes" but none like Michael the Archangel. He was one of many princes but unparalleled as he was not only the son of David but also his Lord.

  There is no direct evidence to support that there is only one archangel. However, if you first believe that Jesus must be Michael then his singularity as archangel must follow.

  Other categories of angels are spoken of in the plural but the title archangel appears only in reference to one angel. There is no mention of a group of archangels in assembly before God anywhere in the Bible but there is much mention of other named groups of angels standing before God. Also if there were more than one Archangel or Chief Angel (arch meaning chief) then the title would have no meaning. If a man is named Chief of Security it would be logical for others to conclude that he alone is chief of security rather than one of several chiefs.

  So when the Bible gives Michael the title of Chief angel, I believe we can conclude that that is exactly what he is, the chief angel, the only chief angel.

  ***********There is though one other important feature concerning Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of John the Christ is said to be the "Word" of God. The Logos. Jesus said at John 14:24, " Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me" The word translated as "word" is the same as that found at John 1:1. [Strong's # 3056] The Christ promulgated not his own word (or wisdom as some may prefer to call it) but that of his Father. When the Word spoke he spoke the words of his Father and in the Name of his Father.

  The term archangel is a compound word meaning chief angel or if the actual meaning of the word angel is used the term then becomes: Chief Messenger. As the Logos, as the Word who spoke the word of his Father, Jesus is surely then God's Chief Messenger, God's Chief Angel, God's Archangel!

  Sabrina
• 

  Leolaia

  This is what happens when Bible texts from completely different books are mixed and matched and combined into new doctrines that never existed in the original texts.

  One problem ppl haven't mentioned yet is the fact that the term "archangel" doesn't occur at all in the OT. It didn't appear for the first time in the NT either. It gained a widespread usage in the intertestamental period, where it referred to the highest order of angels -- usually including Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel. It is fallacious to look only to a couple of occurrences of the word "archangel" in the NT and ignore its wider context -- especially since NT writers themselves adopted the term from intertestamental writings.

  The term archangel is a compound word meaning chief angel or if the actual meaning of the word angel is used the term then becomes: Chief Messenger. As the Logos, as the Word who spoke the word of his Father, Jesus is surely then God's Chief Messenger, God's Chief Angel, God's Archangel!

  This argument is not linguistically sound. The prefix arkh- does not imply uniqueness per se. For instance, arkhiereis "chief priests" in Matthew 2:4, 20:18, 21:15 is in the plural and definitely does not imply that there was only one "chief priest".
• 

  Happy Guy :)

  Thank you for you post euripides. You have made some observations that are very reasonable.
  

  With regard to your comment:

  However, if you first believe that Jesus must be Michael then his singularity as archangel must follow.

  I would agree except for one problem: The bible also is over a thousand pages plenty of opportunity to say directly that Jesus is Michael if it were true. I like to view this issue from the practical side of the fact that the bible does not categorically say Jesus is Michael and there is absolutely no reason for it to be cryptic on this issue therefor, the assumption should be that they are not the same until proven categorically otherwise. After all, they have different names and nothing in the bible indicates that either "Michael" ever goes by "Jesus" or that "Jesus" goes by "Michael". As well Michael is never given a distinction of "King" or referring to "his Kingdom" these are distictions for Jesus and God alone. That would be the base assumption to start from and one would have to prove categorically otherwise. It is for this reason that one could not start with an assumption that Jesus is Michael.

  Also, simply because the bible refers to Michael as a Prince and Jesus as a Prince does not imply that they are the same person. As you also pointed out it refers to Satan as a Prince. Therefor the Prince designation is not evidence in and of itself of Michael also being Jesus.

  Also, as you mentioned there is no basis to believe there is only one archangel. Saying that there is only one because the bible says "Michael the archangel" proves nothing. That would be like saying "Harry the Prince" and saying that there is only one Prince in the Royal Family when in fact we know there are more.

  We already know that Daniel 10:13 says "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia..."

  "One of" implies several. It is pluralized. Therefor the evidence points to several chief angels. Since arch=chief this line could also be written "Michael one of the Arch Angels" which would prove there are several since it is pluralized.

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Thank you for complimenting my screen name. I would like to reciprocate and compliment you on your actual name - Sabrina is a very nice name.

  If Michael is not Jesus, then who is he? Who is this archangel who comes to Gabriel's assistance with such strength that Gabriel

  Simply he is Michael. We have already established that there are more than one archangel. Why do we have to blend any two of them into one being? That would be not much different than blending God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit for the sake of the trinity.

  Remember Michael was "Prince of Daniel's people" and Jesus was King of the Jews.

  Michael was "Prince of Daniels people" and Jesus was "Prince of Peace"

  Miichael was "Protector" of Daniel's People and Jesus was "Saviour" of all Humankind

  There is alot of evidence to support different beings with complimentary but different roles. There is little, if any, evidence that Michael is Jesus and certainly no solid evidence.
• 

  Happy Guy :)

  One problem ppl haven't mentioned yet is the fact that the term "archangel" doesn't occur at all in the OT. It didn't appear for the first time in the NT either. It gained a widespread usage in the intertestamental period, where it referred to the highest order of angels -- usually including Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel. It is fallacious to look only to a couple of occurrences of the word "archangel" in the NT and ignore its wider context -- especially since NT writers themselves adopted the term from intertestamental writings.

  Good job Leolaia. Damn there are some good bible scholars here like you and Blondie and Narkissos and some others. We could start are own cult!