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

by booker-t 251 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Happy Guy :)
    Happy Guy :)

    Well he was either frightened or suddenly overcome with the urge to quote Psalm 22:1. Or, as I prefer to think, the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Mark (but not Luke and John) felt it was important to show Jesus' particularly Jewish roots at that moment, as well as his identification with King David, as well as, of course, the more human side of Jesus.
    There being no *human* side to Michael makes it difficult to match him with the human Jesus.

    I expected I might get a rationalization like this except that this rationalization does not hold water.

    To suggest that Michael who spent thousands and thousands of years in Heavenly Bliss knowing full well what that entailed and that Heavenly experience firmly and deeply imprinted on him for thousands and thousands of years , that he would after only 30+ years as a human forget? Proposterous, absolutely proposterous. It reaches just much too far.

    There are JWs now who wait on baited breath every day because they can't wait for God to come and destroy the Earth just so they can live in paradise because they believe it will be paradise because WT has convinced them of that so well. In all the WT publications you see JWs smiling gleefully as the world is being obliterted around them. Yet all Jesus had was faith and he was frightened, Why, the obvious answer is because he did not have the thousands of years in a previous life and experiences as Michael to alleviate those fears.

    Using the logic of him quoting Psalm 22:1 is flawed as he did not quote the full Psalm. If his intent was to quote the Psalm he would have quoted the next two phrases...he didn't. Jesus' remark was clearly born out of fear or a last moment of weakening in his faith. A weakening in faith which would not likely have occured with 5000+ years under his belt of being a Heavenly Angel.

  • euripides

    Happy Guy, I don't argue that Jesus and Michael are the same, nor was that the impetus behind my "rationalization" of the authors of Matthew and Mark putting the text of Psalm 22:1 (the first sentence of it, yes) in the mouth of Jesus at his dying moment.
    You wrote: "Using the logic of him quoting Psalm 22:1 is flawed as he did not quote the full Psalm."
    Without trying to be facetious, that's just about the weirdest argument I've ever heard. The New Testament is full of partial quotations of passages from the Hebrew Bible, and Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters did it--often. Surely you don't want a full catalogue of examples, but the clue usually entails Jesus starting with the phrase 'it is written.' If I had said Jesus' words "recall" Psalm 22:1, would that have been more accurate? By way of an additional example, Happy Guy, compare Deuternomy 15:11,
    "For the poor will never cease {to be} in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'" and Mark 14:7,
    "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me."
    but also Matthew 26:11
    "For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me."
    John 12:8
    "For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me."
    the last two are almost identical--all of these are taken from the NASB. Jesus did not say he was quoting. If he was, he did not quote the entire passage from Deuteronomy. Perhaps he was, you might say, *recalling* the scripture in Deuteronomy? Perhaps, as is likely the case, the hearers of either the forsaken line or the poor line would immediately recall the source. In any case, to insist on what the gospel writer or Jesus must have been thinking at that moment, then to further extrapolate from that invented speculation on his pre-earthly identity, is a far stretch. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Michael is Jesus either, but my argument for that would have nothing to do with Jesus purported fear on the cross based on a multiplied improbability--that he actually said what the gospel writers put in his mouth, and that what he did say was no more a quote than it was an intentional echo of a Psalm because he did not cite "the entire Psalm."

  • Greenpalmtreestillmine

    Hi Happy Guy,


    I find your reasoning far less sound in your last post, especially the third and second last points.

    In your 3rd last point: Why would you want to substitute Michael for Jesus? Using your own logic the bible is as God wanted it to be; so why suggest a deletion Michael's name and replacement with Jesus in that example?

    In your second last point: You say that Jesus would be powerful enough to defeat the Devil. Didn't you forget an important being here namely God? or are you now making a case to support the trinity doctrine?

    My last post was in reply to Leolaia's assertion that Revelation 12 contradicts or voids the idea that Michael could be Jesus because both personages are mentioned there, the child Messiah and Michael. I simply tried to address her assertion by using a scripture by scripture explanation of how the Jesus/Michael belief can stand. I tried to show that one could read Revelation 12 and from the perspective of believing Michael is Jesus they would find no contradiction. Of course you are right there should be no substituting for the names. If the text says Jesus or Michael it should remain so. I was just trying to show that Revelation 12 does not bar the belief that Jesus is Michael.

    On your second question, of course God can destroy Satan. I was speaking about those among God's creation, who among them would be the one to take the lead in heaven to put Satan out of heaven? To me it would be his son Jesus.

    It must be noted that the names in the Bible signify much more than the individual but the individuals purpose or place or changed circumstances in life. The names Abram and Abraham for instance represent the same man but their meanings are different. Abraham's name changed because by God's will his circumstances changed. His wife's name was also changed. Jacob was given another name, Israel. Jesus himself changed Simon son of John's name to Peter, or Simon Peter. Names in the Bible are much more than just names. What the names mean is significant as the OT has shown us. It appears that in the Bible nothing is without purpose or meaning.

    Jesus means: God Saves or Salavation of Yah. Michael means: Who is like God [?]

    Now, did "God Saves" come to save anyone in heaven, did he die for anyone in heaven? No. His name Jesus refers to his saving of man not angel.

    "Who is like God [?]" on the other hand, stands as someone who declares to all the spirit world his allegiance and strength towards God and from God.

    I believe the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, the one through whom all other things have been created, is both the standard bearer of his his Father in heaven (Michael) and the savior of man (Jesus). Just as he is according to Isaiah also called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    You asked if I supported the Trinity doctrine, no I do not.

    I don't have the time right now to discuss your other questions but I will a little later today or if not then hopefully tomorrow.


  • Kenneson

    In Rev. 19:9-10 an angel refuses worship from John. Yet in Heb. 1:6 are we to imagine that all the other angels are told by God to worship an archangel? I doubt it.

  • Happy Guy :)
    Happy Guy :)

    Without trying to be facetious, that's just about the weirdest argument I've ever heard. The New Testament is full of partial quotations of passages from the Hebrew Bible, and Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters did it--often

    By the same token and without being facetious I find your logic ridiculous. To suggest that Jesus did not really mean what he was saying that there was no meaning or depth to it but rather he was mindlessly attempting to regurgitate scripture without any actually meaning behind it is really reaching. The bible says that Jesus said this just before he died. It is a significant statement as it indicates Jesus' fear. Why would you want to deny that this happened?

    It seems that so much of this argument of Jesus is Michael is dependant on pretending that the bible does not say many things that it actually does say and imagining that it says things that it actually does not say.

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    Happy Guy you hit the nail....

    ...pretending that the bible does not say many things that it actually does say and imagining that it says things that it actually does not say.

    Well thats WT doctrine for ya !

    then when the discussion can go no where else - how bout a little diverson - slightly change the subject

  • Greenpalmtreestillmine

    Hi again Happy Guy,

    1. If Michael is Jesus, then why does the bible not mention God transplanting Mary with Michael's being into her womb? As well, would not Michael be able to transplant himself into Mary's womb? One would think that the bible would have discussed these things if the bible wanted us to know that Michael is Jesus.

    Neither is Mary told Jesus is the Word, or the Firstborn Son of God. It would be enough for the woman to have to put faith in the fact that God's spirit has caused her to conceive and that her issue would reign on the throne of David forever. Don't you think? She and Christ's other disciples are told what they need to know when they need to know it. Otherwise the burden may be too great to carry. John 16:12

    2. When Jesus was crucified, his last remark was "God why have you forsaken me?" He was frightened.

    I believe Hebrews 5:7-9 answers this very well.

    "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."


  • Happy Guy :)
    Happy Guy :)

    Thank you Sabrina for your response. It does not anwer my question #1 though. The fact that God did not dislose these things to Mary does not explain why the bible does not discuss this point.

    Your second comment actually gives more evidence that Michael is not Jesus:

    Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

    Two reaons:

    1. This does not answer my statement. Jesus expressed fear. If he had live for thousands of years as Michael he would have been very much looking forward to returning to Heaven

    but more importantly;

    2. "Once made perfect he became a sourse of salvation....." If he had been Michael then he would have oreviously been perfect for thousands of years. This is a good example of obtaining that status only for the very first time.

  • myelaine


    You still do not answer the question what happened to Michael in heaven?

    Or better yet what came down from heaven?

    Michael comes and goes from heaven at God's direction, he might have been there with Mary and Joseph at the birth for all we know, but if It was Michael being born on earth then, wouldn't the angel that visited Mary before conception(?) tell Mary to call him Michael (archangel[ with us])instead of Emmanuel?(God with us)


  • heathen

    I can clearly tell alot of you are missing the point entirely . Jesus knew and taught his apostles that he did in fact exist prior to coming to earth . When he asked why he was forsaken was probly to do with the absence of holy spirit that was removed at the time of his death . The point was to die as a perfect man ,not an angel , to cancel out the sin of adam . Through one man sin entered the world and through another the basis for forgiveness of sin . Jesus was the perpetual sacrifice for sin and abolished the mosaic law covenant with his sacrifice for all mankind .

Share this