Jesus - Michael or God? (page 4)

You Know

God only has one image. His image is reflected in humans and angels. Both humans and angels were created as sons of God. Jesus, however, has the unique distinction of being "the exact representation of his very being." Hebrews 1:3

/ You Know

Will Power

Hello You Know
thank you for your reply

Jesus, however, has the unique distinction of being "the exact representation of his very being

Just so that I understand what you mean by this statement.
Do you believe Jesus is an angel? The Hebrews you cite, is that regular Hebrews or WT version?
If Jesus is the "exact representation" is God an angel as well?
Or are you talking about what is on the "inside".
I did not think that witnesses comprehended this quality.

You Know

Yerusalem:

Try starting in Hebrews. At Hebrew's 1:5 it says, "To which of the angels did God ever say, 'you are my son, this day I have begotten you', or again, 'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son' Again Heb 1:8 "But of the Son he [God the father] says, 'Thy throne O God is for ever and ever' Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus was not an angel. Nothing in the bible says the Jesus was an angel. WHy would Jesus have two names?

You are wrong. When Jehovah spoke to Jesus saying "You are my Son," Jesus wasn't an angel. Jehovah spoke those words when Jesus was a man of flesh and blood---when he was just baptised. Jesus at that point became born-again. True, he was always Jehovah's son, even as an angel and as a human from birth, but his miraculously being born from holy spirit was an entirely new aspect. No angel has even been born again. So, on the day Jesus became the Christ Jehovah became his Father in a very special way. And the reason Jesus has two names is because he was lived in two different worlds. Obviously, before humans became sinful and needed salvation, Jesus would not have born the name that means "Jehovah is Salvation." / You Know

LittleToe

Will:
You misunderstand me entirely.
I was just stating what JW's believe, not expressing my own personal convictions.

Personally I can follow Thomas's comments of "My Lord and my God!".
Therefore I have nothing to rectify, for I have left the JW's and have absolutely no reason, nor wish, to support their erroneous theology.

YK:
If you want to give Jesus the title of angel (messenger) then I'm okay with that, but don't try telling me he is merely and angellic creature. That I cannot go with.
He is the EXACT representation of His very being.
He is the Son of the Father in every way.
If you believe that He is merely an angel I would suggest that you probably do not know Him, no matter how you would like to bend Hebrews 1.

ChristianObserver

Hello :o)

Is Jesus the archangel Michael as claimed by the WTBTS?

There is an inherent problem in the WTBTS claim imo, that Jesus is *the* archangel. If He is the ONLY archangel, why do we read at Daniel 10 v 13: But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me.

An examination of the Hebrew, the Greek of the LXX at this point, comparison with the use of 'archangel' in the New Testament Greek, comprehension/knowledge of the use of the prefix 'arche'in Greek and consideration of the development of angelology (new light!) in the inter-testamental period are all pertinent to this discussion.

One of the arguments that I have seen for Jesus being *the* archangel as cut and pasted from the CD Rom is that *archangel* only appears in the singular in the New Testament.

So let's consider another noun which appears solely in the singular in the New Testament and with the same frequency as *archangel* i.e. twice - 'oinopotes' for example. Does this mean that there can only be one drunkard......? Hmm......! Methinks not!

And so to the prefix 'arche' as an explanation used by the WTBTS of the *singularity* of *archangel*.

Going back to the Daniel passage above, what is the Greek used in the Septuagint for prince? *Archon* - and Michael is *one* of the chief princes..... hmmm!!!

If we consider the use of the word *archangel* in the Bible - the term does not appear at all in the Old Testament. Chief princes - 'archon' - (Michael is included as one of them, so this would indicate that there are others...) - appears to be the preferred description in the Old Testament. In the New Testament - the word *archangel* appears but twice.

Jude 1 v 9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you (NWT version - 'Jehovah rebuke you' - yet if we compare this passage with Jesus' temptation in the widerness, Jesus does rebuke the devil forcefully - He dared to do it (NWT - 'Jehovah rebuke you') whereas Michael 'dare not do it'.)

At this point, *archangel* is of necessity singular anyway as it is describing only one 'archangel'. Moreover, it is a reference to a passage from The Assumption of Moses - a non-canonical book.

The other occasion is at 1 Thessalonians 4 v 16: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.

This usage does not necessarily imply solely one archangel - 3 poetic singulars for literary effect not being the least of the explanations.

The description of Gabriel at Luke 1 v 19: And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God - has lead to an understanding of Gabriel being an archangel which ties in with apocryphal and inter-testamental literature of the time. Britannica suggests the existence of 7 archangels and there was a belief that those angels who 'stand in the presence of God' are the archangels.

Gabriel, Michael and Raphael (accompanies Tobias in Tobit) are all archangels in Jewish tradition.

Hebrews addresses the issues arising from the development of angelology in the inter-testamental period, and imo, refutes the idea of Jesus being merely an angel or messenger, albeit of the highest order, viz *an* archangel. We have moved from the sending of messengers (angels) and the choosing of prophets to the sending of the *Son* with God's absolute authority (cf the parable of the master sending his servants and then his son told by Jesus).

Jesus' very name is embedded in God's name (whereas Michael means 'who is like *el*? - not *Yahweh* as in Jesus' name - but 'el' from 'elohim' - subtle but importance difference when examined in the original language, which is not brought out in the English translations) and Yahweh's name is embedded in Jesus' name. Yahweh/Yahashua (I am that I am's salvation).

I have read that Seventh Day Adventists consider that Jesus is a *divine* archangel Michael and Mormons that Adam is Michael.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus is Michael or an archangel, so relying on 'sola scriptura' the WTBTS claim cannot be substantiated imo. There are numerous references though to the 'sharing' of attributes by God and Jesus and the application of various scriptures to each of them.

So setting aside *sola scriptura* (after all oral tradition was very important to the Jews and early Christians), when considering Jewish tradition, deutero-canonical books and inter-testamental writing, the existence of more than one archangel is indicated which rather throws cold water on the *only one archangel* theory - again imo!

But then a major difference between the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and orthodox Christians is the Christological view held by each group.

Hope this helps Dawn :o)

YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]

Jesus - Michael or God?

You Know

Will Power

You Know

LittleToe

ChristianObserver

Frenchy

sadiejive

Yerusalyim

Share this