Oh you guys ..........the bible is always right!
Except when it isn't!
clarity
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why
by paradisebeauty 29 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
kaik
The controversy between Jesus and Michael association is old for 2 millennia. In the book "The Truth Behind the Christ Myth" by Pinkham, Mark Amaru is a part on "Essenes expected Michael to incarnate into a body synthesized by the contracting forces of Belial before assuming his earthly role as the prophesied Messiah". Essenes "expected one Messiah to be born who will unite both offices. He would be a kingly Messiah, as well as the priestly Messiah, and he will unite both as the Michael".
Later period in the late antiquity Nestorian split with the official churches was also caused by belief that Jesus was the highest of angels as Michael. JW attempts to copy a theology that was already debated centuries ago as their own.
-
Mephis
The Essenes seem to have had at least two messiahs, and the priestly one actually addresses his army with reference to Michael in the Qumran scrolls. At least 3 of the supposed archangels are referenced as being part of the whole shebang but they then still need God to come and help too. They're all kind of distinct figures from my reading of what's been translated and made available from Qumran. I'm kind of wary of Mark Amaru Pinkham's interpretation there.
Jude referencing Enoch really strongly hints towards Michael not being the same as Jesus, at least in the view of whoever wrote Jude. Michael's fifth of the seven in Enoch 20, so you're struggling to see how he's any more special than any other of the named super-angels within those writings - Tobit even has one of the others doing the 'I'm going to pretend to be a man' thing. Jude's only short but it still manages to throw in a Michael reference without linking it to Jesus, and so one is almost forced to assume a reading similar to that found in Enoch of what/who Michael is. There's an interesting theory that angels (especially Michael) became the replacement other deities for many Jews in the second temple period, perhaps Catholic saints is a parallel there, though others will no doubt have their own opinions on that.
But really, it seems to me the whole 'Michael is Jesus' thing is kind of the JWs trying to find a way to keep Jesus distinct from God. Doesn't really make sense to me, but then I don't do the believer thing and Revelation has always struck me as having to be seen with all the other apocalyptic stuff coming out of early Christianity and also pre-70 CE Judaism. It's all very Gnostic in some ways, so I guess they're right with following the early Christian church there - they're just following the bunch who got excommunicated ;)
-
jhine
Paradise Beauty , when I refered to the Early Church Fathers I meant Tertullian , Justin Martyr etc who came after the apostles . At least one of these writers states that his writings came down from the apostles themselves ( I cannot remember which at the moment ) . The line of teaching came from Jesus to the apostles and then from the apostles directly to , at least , one of the ECF .
Sorry I am being a bit hazy , I doing this from memory and need to find my notes .
The apostle John himself calls the Word eternal and then equates this Word with Jesus , as in his gospel and first letter .
As to Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man Irenaeus writes
" By His own blood then the Lord redeemed us , and gave His life for our life , His flesh for our flesh He poured out the spirit of the Father to bring about the union and communion of God and man , bringing down God to men through the Spirit , while raising man to God through His incarnation and by His presence surely and truly giving us incorruption through the communion we have through God ."
So because originally man was made in God's image but mankind fell and became sinful through Adam ( and if there was a literal Adam or not is another discussion ) so the idea here is that ( and I'm putting this in my own words which are crude ) God became made in man's image to pay the price for sin . Perfect man fell so perfect man must rise ..
I apologise that I'm not explaining this well .
Jan
-
Vidqun
It seems to me that the writer of the book of Daniel believed that Michael will rule as king:
Dan 12:1. Michael to stand up. “Michael will stand up.” Daniel often uses the phrase “to stand up” to mean standing up as king. In other parts of Daniel, as well as this prophecy, the term “stand up” means that the person assumes authority to rule as a king (cf. Dan. 8:22, 23; 11:2, 3, 4, 7, 20, 21). Hence, when Michael ‘stands up’ he, too, starts to rule as a king.
arise, appear, come on the scene, esp. in the book of Daniel, to arise, come on the scene: Dn 8:22, 8:22, 8:23, 11:2, 11:3, 11:4, 12:1, cf. 11:7, v. 20, v. 21. See BDBLex.
-
paradisebeauty
Deuteronomy 18:15
The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.
Deuteronomy 18:18
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.Plus in the prophesy of Genesis, the one who destroys Satan must be the seed of the woman.
In an angel the seed of a woman?
And if Jesus was in reality an angel, were the universal controversies really answered?
The idea that Jesus was an angel, a spirit creature is as mystic and as Gnostic as the trinity.
-
Vidqun
The Bible portrays spirit creatures in different forms, but I think that's mostly for our benefit, and to distinguish their functions. A spirit creature is a spirit creature. Question is: What does "angel" mean? If it is a rank of a spirit creature, then the problem is not so big after all. Jesus' rank definitely improved after he came to earth, if one reads the first chapter of Hebrews. According to Genesis, an angel could materialize into a man. If that was the case, then Jesus being born as a human should not pose a problem for the Creator. Now what "woman" is being referred to in Genesis? Is it literal or symbolic? In Galatians (1:26) Paul refers to Jerusalem above as their "mother," which would be a figurative woman. -
InChristAlone
I view Christ as God's literal Word made manifest, which is more than a messenger. It would be irresponsible to say God eternally didn't have his own Word until Genesis 1:1 occurred. (I see Micah 5:2 differently..."from eternity" or everlasting, ancient of days, etc. implies eternity past). Seeing Jesus as God's literal Word allows for clarity on certain OT questions I had like all the times people talked to a physical person and called Him YHWH. Or manifest as fire preceding the Israelites because "My name is in Him" (See meaning of Yeshua). The reason I see Jesus as God is because if Jesus is God's Word, then who else could Jesus be? My words cannot be distinct from me. This also explains why Jesus could "only say what the Father wills [Jesus] to say" or he could only "do what the Father wills [Jesus] to do." -
Half banana
The intellectual failure present here is that no one is recognising that the subject matter is religious mythology and not a matter of evidential facts. All that is possible to attempt is to make a coherent pattern from the stories of antiquity. The Bible, both Hebrew and NT are the conflation of eclectic pagan myths and by sanctifying them; religious people will look for unity even where it is flagrantly in contradiction. In mythology people and spirits fuse, they morph and become other characters...if your subjects do that: you are in myth territory.
There can be no orthodoxy derived from them. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
-
zombie dub
Arguing about this is like arguing over what age Peter Pan was when he defeated Captain Hook, and was Hook really eaten by a crocodile.