My mother does as well and she used Hebrews 1:13-14 as proof that Jesus does have a invisible presence b/c God told him to sit @ his right hand and WAIT untill his enemies r placed as bla bla bla. So she feels this is evidence that Jesus is in a position of power @ Gods right hand and waiting, which is the invisible presence.
But that can't be right because the Society teaches that the "invisible presence" has only been since 1914 and yet according to the Bible, Jesus has been enthroned at the right hand of God since he ascended to heaven in the first century. Show her Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, Colossians 3:1, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3, 12:2, 1 Peter 3:22, Revelation 3:21, etc. According to the NT, it was at his ascension when Jesus became exalted with his Father as King and Lord over all (Acts 10:36, 17:6-7, Romans 10:12-13, Philippians 2:9-11, Colossians 1:18-19, Ephesians 1:20-23, 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 2:9, 1 Peter 3:22, etc.), not two thousand years later. 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 doesn't say that Jesus waits until the enemies are put under his feet before he begins to reign; it says that "he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet", i.e. Jesus was already reigning and would continue reigning until the "end" comes and he hands the kingdom back to his Father (v. 24). What the Christians were waiting for was for Christ to come in glory and bring about the end of the present age and its earthly kingdoms -- not "invisibly" but in a highly visible manner.
BTW, "archangel" as a term did not originate in the NT but was already widely used in Jewish literature. Michael was by no means the only archangel. Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, etc. were archangels as well. When the Society argues from the etymology of the term that "archangel" allows for only one referrent, not only do they mischaracterize the etymological meaning as implying uniqueness but they also ignore the usage of the term in the literature of the period.
If Jesus was not an angel there would be no need to compare him to an angel. By comparing him to the angels it proves he was an angel, only a unique one. It's rather funny, though, how many think this proves Jesus was not an angel and others think just the opposite, that it proves he was.
The passage in Hebrews 1-2 contrasts Jesus with the angels not because he is a unique kind of angel (nowhere does the passage establish that Jesus is an angel is his own right, the contrast systematically sets Jesus apart from "all angels") but because of his role as promulgator of a new covenant, whereas the angels were the promulgators of the old covenant. If one just looks at the context, this is abundantly clear. The contrast is set up in the very first sentence: "In the past God spoke (lalésas) to our forefathers through the prophets (e.g. Moses) at many times and in various ways (i.e. through the agency of angels) but in these last days he has spoken (elalésen) to us by his Son, whom he appointed her of all things" (1:1-2). Then in 2:2, the old covenant that used to be binding among Jews is referred to as "the message spoken (lalétheis) by angels". Compare also Galatians 3:19: "The Law was promulgated by angels, assisted by a mediator (i.e. Moses)", as well Acts 7:38: "It was through Moses that our ancestors could communicate with the angel who had spoken (lalountos) to him on Mount Sinai". That is why the angels were being contrasted with Jesus. So the purpose in contrasting Jesus with the angels is to establish the superiority of the new covenant promulgated by him over the old covenant promulgated by the angels. And having dealt with the angels, the author then turns to contrasting the mediators of the two covenants in Hebrews 3:1-6, where again Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses -- the mediator of the old covenant. And similarly, Jesus as high priest is superior to the high priest under the old covenant (ch. 4-7). All of that is to lead to the conclusion in ch. 8: "The ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, as it is founded on better promises. If that first covenant had been without a fault, there would have been no need for a second one to replace it" (8:6-7). To interpret Hebrews 1-2 as implying that Jesus is an angel is to read a meaning that isn't there in the text.
Further, 1 Thess clearly says Jesus has the voice of an "archangel" which means he must be an archangel in my mind.
As I said in the other thread, the text says no such thing. It doesn't say that Jesus "has" an archangel's voice, such that "his voice" is an "archangel's voice". It says that the coming of Christ will occur during a "cry of command", during a "voice of an archangel" and during a "trumpet call", or in other words, his coming will be accompanied with a "cry of command", with a "shout of an archangel" and with a "trumpet call". That is what the Greek construction (the preposition en + dative, a dative of attendant circumstance or time) in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 indicates. In fact, Paul uses exactly the same dative construction in 1 Corinthians 15:52, where the reference is to the same trumpet call: "We shall all be changed and it will be instantaneous, in the twinkling of an eye (en rhipé ophthalmou), at the last trumpet (en té eskhaté salpingi)". The transformation would occur during a twinkling of an eye and during the last trumpet, or would occur with twinkling of an eye and with the last trumpet. Compare with en phóné arkhangelou "at the voice of an archangel" and en salpingi theou "at the trumpet call of God" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. In both verses, en + salpingi refers to what would be heard in the situation of the Lord's coming, or at the time of the Lord's coming. It is the same thing with en + phóné arkhangelou, which occurs with the same grammatical construction in the same verse. En + phóné arkhangelou refers to what would be heard in the situation of the Lord's coming, or at the time of the Lord's coming. It goes far beyond what is stated to claim that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 identifies the archangel with Jesus. It simply says that an archangel would shout at the time of Jesus' coming, just as the trumpet call would similarly sound forth. That the angels accompany Jesus at the time of his coming is already stated in letter itself (1 Thessalonians 3:13), as well as in other references to the parousia (Matthew 13:41-49, 16:27, 24:31, 25:31, Mark 8:38, 13:27, Luke 9:26, 2 Thessalonians 1:7), cf. especially Matthew 24:31: "He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call (meta salpiggos megalés)". So if Jesus was to be surrounded with angels at his coming, why assume that the voice must be his?
The cry of command mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is probably the command for the dead to rise, which is similar in function to the trumpet call in the apocalyptic tradition. See especially the reference to the "great angel" in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah who comes forth with "a golden trumpet in his hand" and who blows it three times and shouts to the righteous dead that "you have escaped from the abyss and Hades and you will now cross over to the crossing place, for your name is written in the Book of Life" (9:1-3). On the role of the archangels in the resurrection, see also the Sibylline Oracles which refer to the "imperishable angels of the immortal God, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel, who know what evils anyone did previously, leading all the souls of men from the murky dark to judgment, to the tribunal of the great immortal God" (2.214-18). One stream of tradition named Jeremiel or Remiel as the archangel involved in the resurrection. According to 1 Enoch 20:8, Remiel is "put in charge of those who will rise", 4 Ezra 4:26 portrays "Jeremiel the archangel" as supervising the "souls of the righteous in the chambers," who await their resurrection on Judgment Day, and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah mentions "the great angel Eremiel who is over the abyss and Hades, the one in which all of the souls are imprisoned until this day" (6:15).
