Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person? (page 4)

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi 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.

If a person believes that all the books in the Bible are there by God's direction then why should it seem strange that they should also believe that one book may be linked to another or provide help in understanding another?

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 few references to the word "archangel" in the NT and ignoring its wider context -- especially since NT writers themselves adopted the term from intertestamental writings.

The books of the NT run from Matthew to Revelation. What God has put together we must respect. If though we do not believe God influenced the writing of the NT and the selecting of its books then of course we are under no obligation to believe they are any more important than any other 1st or 2nd century writing. In that case, then, all bets are off and all things written are considered fair game and in competition with the NT as books and writings of note and worth. I though do believe God influenced the writing and selecting of the NT books, so for me what the NT says is good enough. You added:

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".

I must assume that the translators know what they are doing when they translate singular and plural nouns and their verbs. If most Bible translations say Archangel, the singular, it should be taken as such. If they say "chief priests", the plural, that too should be understood as written. Sabrina

ellderwho

Booker-t: I think JW's are right on this doctrine about Jesus being Michael. I still feel that the JW's are wrong on some other doctrinal matters but I feel they are right on the money with this one.

What happened to Michael in heaven while Jesus was on earth?

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Happy Guy,

We have already established that there are more than one archangel

How did we do that?

Sabrina

Happy Guy :)

Established was a bad choice of words. We have shown a good argument for it in my opinion.

Also: 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.

Also Leolaia made some good comments:

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.

Will Power

LOL:

What happened to Michael in heaven while Jesus was on earth?

Was Michael the 1st born of all creation like the JWs claim? or was it Jesus? If Jesus is changing constantly from the son of god to an angel to just a man, to a god and back to angel, then back to Jesus (sometimes in the same sentence in the NWT !!!) yet the bible says he is the same yesterday, today and forever - how can a JW say that he is all these things and just a man - and say it with a straight face? And say that God can't leave heaven cause who'd look after everything....

They also say Jesus is the Abaddon - Aid to Bible Understanding - and that is the evil one. Then it is Jesus coming, no Jehovah, no Jesus, in Rev 22:12

The JWs don't have a clue who is who from one president to the next. But they sure waste alot of trees and people's lives pretending they do.

my 2 cents

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Happy Guy,

Also: 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.

Angel and Prince are very different designations. One is a heavenly messenger the other a ruler. Just like the American Ambassador to Great Britain is one man yet one of many Americans so Michael can be one Archangel and yet also be one of several Princes.

Also Leolaia made some good comments: 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.

If we are discussing a Bible topic then it must be proven or disproven by the Bible itself not outside texts, just as we do not refer to the Parlimentary decisions of King George III to help us prove the rightness or wrongfulness of the Constitution of the United States. The Bible must stand or fall on its own. Sabrina

Will Power

Angel and Prince are very different designations. One is a heavenly messenger the other a ruler. Just like the American Ambassador to Great Britain is one man yet one of many Americans so Michael can be one Archangel and yet also be one of several Princes.

I'm sorry but all these LITERAL analogies go on forever. Is the bible supposed to be taken this way? I highly doubt it.

If it is then why is so much of it ignored? If parts are metaphors, allegories, abstracts etc, why the inability to think outside the box?

If literal then why would a supreme God call his son an angel? A being of an inferior nature? - and why would Hebrews state that HE would never call Him and Angel?

Would the Father Son thing be figurative then? or Literal.

Happy Guy :)

Angel and Prince are very different designations. One is a heavenly messenger the other a ruler. Just like the American Ambassador to Great Britain is one man yet one of many Americans so Michael can be one Archangel and yet also be one of several Princes

By the same token he would be but one Ambassador in a world of many Ambasadors.

I do understand your points in general though and they are reasonable however the flipside of this is that you have said nothing thus far which proves that there is not more than one Archangel. The prefix arch in and of itself is widely used as a designation of importance but not exclusivity.

and Will Power I agree you on the literal stuff. The bible is full of examples which promote cruelty and violence. I certainly do not take it literally and I am sure my kids are happy for that fact.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Will Power,

I'm sorry but all these LITERAL analogies go on forever. Is the bible supposed to be taken this way? I highly doubt it. If it is then why is so much of it ignored? If parts are metaphors, allegories, abstracts etc, why the inability to think outside the box?

I'm not a Bible literalist by any means. But I do believe that the first step to understanding the Bible is to allow the words written to speak for themselves without some outside influence. If the text says a "well is full of water" then imo we should allow, within context, that the writer meant a well dug in the ground and the water is H2O. Why try to decipher if his use of "well" and "water" is consistent with how it's used in texts outside of the Bible? Now, after recognizing that he meant a well in the ground and H20 we can then make a judgement as to whether or not that particular text has a further symbolic meaning.

Biblical personages were not always aware that their writings or stories would have symbolic meanings for future generations. When Abraham's son Isaac told his sons the story of Hagar and Ishmael it is not likely he knew the later symbolic meaning that the Apostle Paul would attribute to those events. The only thing necessary in Isaac's time was the faithful transmission of the story. The later realization of its symbolic meaning would be understood when it was necessary. Isaac transmitted the concrete events, Paul, by God's spirit, helped us to understand whatever allegory, metaphors or abstracts are to be found in that story.

Concretness is vital to establishing a true allegory.

Sabrina

Will Power

Jesus is surely then God's Chief Messenger, God's Chief Angel, God's Archangel!

The Bible must stand or fall on its own.

Surely then we must look at the book of Hebrews. It clearly states that God did not call any angel his son. Even in the interlinear.

The word angel does sound like a good way to describe a spirit tho, and a messanger, and a messanger that is a spirit. Now doesn't the bible say that God is a spirit as well? I mean not flesh and blood. Would God be an angel ?

If the bible will prove on its own - then why go beyond ? But if it is clearly contradicting - why try to use it to prove everything? (and anything?)

Strong's Concordance is quite a book - It is even online ! Has anyone ever looked up word 1943?

will

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

Share this