Where does it teach in the Bible that Jesus is Michael the archangel? Why isn't Jesus called Michael right now since he is in heaven?
2007-09-07 02:32:58 · 15 answers · asked by Graham 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
amulet...i don't either. just trying to find out why.
2007-09-07 02:39:06 · update #1
Rayhab, I read that verse. It says Michael and his angels fought with satan. I'm still not seeing how you connect that to Jesus.
2007-09-07 02:43:25 · update #2
To 'i speak the truth'...i agree that jesus is given several titles. but michael is an angel. are you saying jesus was only an angel?
2007-09-07 02:50:29 · update #3
to 'sxanthop'...so, you say that Jesus is an angel?
2007-09-07 02:52:09 · update #4
Well I have been reading the Bible all my life, and I can't seem to find anywhere that Jesus Is Michael.
I must not know much about the Bible.
It seems to me that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the I Am..or..God in human form.
I better get to work! LOL
2007-09-07 16:47:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
If he is not Micheal, why does it say "with the voice of the archangel"? (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
It says all angels and authorities were made in submission to Jesus. (1 Peter 3:22)
Paul said that the angels belonged to Jesus (2 Thessalonians 1:7)
But Satan was cast out of Heaven, it states that Micheal and his Angels were fighting against Satan.
Revelation 12
7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back
(The Archangel is plural, so there is only one Archangel.)
So the question is, If Jesus is not the Archangel, then why does it state that the Angels belonged to Jesus and to Micheal. Remember, Jesus was given power over the Angels.
2007-09-07 09:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by VMO 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Jesus has a number of names
Matt 1:23 (Immanuel).
Zech 6:12 (Sprout).
Ezekiel 37:24,25 (David
.
We JW's agree with most bible scholars (even atheists believe this)
that this "David" here is supposed to be Jesus (a king to time indefinite).
Revelation 19:11-12) 11. . .look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on
war in righteousness. 12 His eyes are a fiery flame, and upon his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but
he himself,
Jesus is called Faithful and True. It also says Jesus has ANOTHER name on top of Jesus and Immanuel and Sprout
and David and The Word.
Does it really seem so unbelievable that Jesus might have one more name... like Michael?
2007-09-07 09:46:07 · answer #3 · answered by I speak Truth 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry for the long answer: Add this to the above evidence from the bible.
J. N. D. Kelly, in his Early Christian Doctrines, writes about the view of Hermas regarding the Son of God:
“In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’, and ‘glorious’.
This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael.”
“There is evidence also . . . of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.”
Dr. H. R. Boer, in his book A Short History of the Early Church, comments on the thrust of the Apologists’ teaching:
“Justin [Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called . . . Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. . . .
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists.”
R. P. C. Hanson, in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, states:
“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.”3
Dr. Alvan Lamson, in The Church of the First Three Centuries, adds this testimony regarding the teaching of church authorities before the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.):
“The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers . . . That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate.”
Similarly, in the book Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant says the following about the Apologists:
“The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. . . . What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity . . . Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist.”
The idea that Jesus was equal to God came 2 -3 hundred years after Christ.
.
2007-09-07 12:21:41 · answer #4 · answered by TeeM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually, Jesus can be (and is) called "Michael" right now.
Is not Jesus Christ the primary "Seed" who defeats Satan? The Millennial Rule begins with Satan's abyssing, performed by Christ Jesus, and no mere subsidiary. Thus, when Revelation 12:7-9 tells us that "Michael" performs this work, Jehovah's Witnesses are convinced that "Michael" is simply another name for Jesus, just as "Immanuel", "Sprout", "David", and "The Word" are additional names of Jesus (see Matt 1:23 ["Immanuel"]; Zech 6:12 ["Sprout", "Branch", or "Shoot"]; Ezek 37:24,25 ["David"]; Rev 19:13 ["The Word of God"]).
(Genesis 3:15) He [the Seed of God's woman] will bruise you [the original serpent Satan] in the head
(Revelation 12:7-9) Michael and his angels battled with the dragon... So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan
(Revelation 20:1-3) And I saw an angel... And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he hurled him into the abyss
(Revelation 20:6-7) Rule as kings with [Christ] for the thousand years.
Almost comically, the same trinitarians who insist that Jesus cannot have another name are the same persons who pretend that Jesus is also called Jehovah.
While anti-Witnesses pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses rely upon one Scripture for the belief that Jesus is the archangel Michael, that passage (1 Thes 4:14-16) is simply the easiest, most concise demonstration of the fact.
...(1 Thessalonians 4:14-16) Jesus died and rose again, so, too... the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_05.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/rq/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/dg/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm?article=article_04.htm
2007-09-07 16:20:48 · answer #5 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The term archangel occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host.
1Thessalonians 4:16 says of Jesus: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" (KJV)
If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “the voice of the archangel” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
EDIT
By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Acts 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. .
2007-09-07 09:44:49 · answer #6 · answered by babydoll 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The name of this Michael appears only five times in the Bible. The glorious spirit person who bears the name is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS) Michael means “Who Is Like God?” The name evidently designates Michael as the one who takes the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty and destroying God’s enemies.
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.)
Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil? (John 12:31) Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the ‘standing up of Michael’ to act with authority with “a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them. So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.
2007-09-07 09:49:35 · answer #7 · answered by sxanthop 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Against the onslaught of pharisaical teachings that were brought about after the rise of Christ Jesus from the dead and the conversion of so many, the Hebrew(Jewish) scholars tried to introduce this concept.
Paul, with Mark as Scribe, blew it out of the water with one verse!!!
Hebrews 1
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
The WTB&TS have bought this and perpetuated this weak and heretical doctrine.
2007-09-07 19:54:04 · answer #8 · answered by troll to troll 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
in rev. 12:7 it refers to Jesus as Michael fighting with Satan.
if you keep reading in that chapter it speaks of the Christ and Jesus in reference to the one at war with Satan. i hope this helps.
did you keep reading vers 11:they conquered because of the blood of the lamb.
2007-09-07 09:41:33 · answer #9 · answered by rayhab 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What HAVE you GOT AGAINST the Name Michael ? ? ?
2007-09-07 11:07:31 · answer #10 · answered by . 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋