hooberus ,
Throughout this thread you have continued to refer to scripture in Hebrews 1 as evidence that Jesus could not be Michael the achangel because it contrasts the Son and the angels. Dean Porter discussed this earlier in the thread (10-Oct-03 21:02 GMT) and said:
However , put your objective head on for a moment. IF the Son, the LOGOS was a High Ranking Angel like a Seraphim then he would be superior to the Angels who are the lowest ranked Bene Ha Elohim. Yes !
By the way , the Son's superiority is contrasted by his Sonship. Yet, as I have just observed, the Angels were Bene Ha Elohim and were thus themselves by their very nature SONS of God.
The point is that the Son Jesus is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON. His Sonship is superior to the Angels but they are both Sons.
Your response to this has been that when it refers to the angels in Hebrews 1 it must include cherubs, seraphs, archangels because it is contrasting the nature of the angels and that of the Son, and not their function. However, that is not what Hebrews says. It says that he is better than the angels...because he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. The fact that the spirit nature of angels is contrasted with the fleshly nature of men in Hebrews 2:7,9 does not indicate that there is a distinction in the nature of the Son and the angels (which is spirit). To say they do not have the same specific substance nature is not a scriptural term but a Platonic term used by Athanasius and some of his supporters to describe the relationship between God and Christ.
The fact is that we know very little of the spirit realm. For example, you referred to 1 Corinthians 15:39 to show that there are different types of flesh. It says:
Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another fleh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
But it then goes on to speak of heavenly bodies, and it says (vss. 40,41):
And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.
I am not quite sure what this tells us of the spirit realm, or whether it just refers to the physical "heavenly bodies". But as the following discussion is on the resurrection I think not. So, then, it would seem that seraphs, cherubs, archangels all have a different "glory". So do those who are resurrected just as it says (vs 42): "So also is the resurrection of the dead". They seem to have the same "glory" as Jesus because Paul says (vs.48) "As the one made of dust is, so those made of dust are also; and as the heavenly one is, so those who are heavenly are also". How then does the nature of those who are resurrected differ from the angels, or the cherubs, seraphs or archangels ? Scripture is simply not specific about this but just as star differs fom star in glory but they share the same "nature", I suggest it is reasonable to believe the same is true of the spirit realm. Thus the first-begotten Son has a superior name to the angels, he has a higher rank, he has a greater "glory". This is neither evidence for nor against his being an archangel but is about his being exulted "more than your partners".
Let me put it a different way. You have accepted that Isaiah 9:6 (LXX) speaks of him as "Angel of great counsel" and have said you understand that is referring to his function as a messenger. Yet to speak of him as archangel is also referring to a function he performs as leader of the angels. Why is the one function more acceptable than the other ? You have said that "I don't think that Revelation 12:7 should be applied to Christ based on a similarity in word structure to 2 Thessalonians 1;7-8". Yet John uses similar language of both Michael and Christ in Revelation, as leader of the angels.
And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. - 12:7-9
And I saw the heaven opened, and look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteouseness...and the name he is called is The Word of God. Also, thearmies that were in heaven were following him on white horses...And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage the war with the one seated on the horse and with his army...And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. - 19:11,13,14,19; 20:1,2
Kenneson,
So what is both Phil. and Hebrews saying? It is this. Jesus, who had limited himself in his humanity (Heb. 2:9) is no longer so (Heb. 1:4) He returns to the Father as the Exalted One, which is what he was in his PRE-EXISTENCE. - Kenneson, 27-Oct-03 23:55 GMT.
Philippians 2:5-11 says that Christ humbled himself and became obedient as far as death and "for this very reason [dio - through which] also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every name". It seems clear to me that Paul is saying Christ was exalted to a superior position to that which he previously had before humbling himself. It is hardly a reward of his obedience ("for this reason") to merely give back to him what he had given up. No, he was "exalted to a superior position". This ties in with what Hebrews says, that he "became better than the angels", "inherited a more excellent name", "was anointed with the oil of exultation more than your partners".
Earnest