"For to what angel did God ever say, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee'? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son'? And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, ‘Let all God's angels worship him.'"
If God calls Jesus "Son" but doesn't call any of the angels "Son" and at the same time directs the angels to worship Jesus when He is walking upon this earth, it is quite obvious that Jesus was not St. Michael the Archangel but is in fact God incarnate.
Please explain.
2007-10-06 14:52:37 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The Bible does tell us that St. Michael is an angel. Jude 9 says "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil . . . " (KJV). This same Holy Bible also tells us that Jesus is both God and man.
"no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 12:3, KJV)
"we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9, KJV).
"Lord" is a term synonymous in Hebrew usage with God. At the same time he was "made a little lower than the angels," he became man. We have here the hierarchy of God, angels, man.
Your argument is irreconcilable with Scripture.
2007-10-06 15:09:06 · update #1
Just some Chick
JWs have been bashing Catholics and calling us names in this forum for ages. Isn't it fair to ask them also a question about their faith? I just want to know their explanation.
2007-10-06 15:11:23 · update #2
God did call angels "sons" but not Sons. Please note the capital S.
2007-10-06 15:23:41 · update #3
Joy of Joys
Jesus said that because he was still here on earth and could not send the Holy Spirit and act out his role as the Advocate; and also the way, the truth and the life. Satisfied?
2007-10-06 16:06:53 · update #4
None of your citations specifically say Jesus is the Archangel Michael. Compared to mine which specifically state Jesus is God. You guys are making interpretations and suggestions that are not in the verses you quoted.
2007-10-06 16:50:23 · update #5
It is interesting that the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormon's were both started by 32cnd degree Masons huh? They have an agenda that is to deny the Divinity of Christ because their God is someone that is not God.
2007-10-06 15:22:54 · answer #1 · answered by Midge 7 · 1⤊ 6⤋
I see that Achtung Heiss used several times more to prove his point and also the same verse you uses and sound very logical.....
and God call his angels "sons" in Job 1:6 and 2:1 and also an angel received worship in Joshua 5:14.
and The "S" what differences makes are they or not sons of God? , in the original scriptures the capital letters weren´t used it.
in a Catholic bible in Spanish in Malachi 3:1 says that Jesus is the angel of covenant, I can show you if you wish, also Revelation 10:1 describe Jesus as powerful angel.
nobody said that Jesus is not a god, all the sons of God are gods according to Psalms 82:6, and if angels are sons of God then they can be called gods, the bible call Satan "God" in 2 Corithians 4:4.
2007-10-06 15:17:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
An archangel is the Chief angel and supporting scriptures help one to reason that this is referring to Jesus.
At John 14:28, Jesus tells his followers that, "the Father is greater than I am." So Jesus isn't saying he is God incarnate but acknowledges his place as a servant of God's or as a Son serves a Father.
2007-10-06 15:25:17 · answer #3 · answered by joyofjoys 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I would like to hear more explanations about this question asked earlier. Are satan and Jesus related? This was not really answered directly before either.
2007-10-06 14:55:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
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
The question presents Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13 to argue that Jesus is not an angel, but ironically these Scriptures actually PROVE the opposite point quite convincingly, and additionally refute the trinity! In fact, these verses (along with the verses from which Paul there quotes) demonstrate conclusively that Jesus *IS* (and was) an angel and distinct from Jehovah. Those verses ask three questions which are actually specific references to earlier Scriptures about Jesus, and each and every one of those Hebrew Scriptures juxtaposes Jesus as separate and distinct from the person of "Jehovah" (note that each referenced "OT" Scripture actually uses the Tetragrammaton). Thus, when each question frames itself as asking about “which angel” ("to which angel...?") then a well-read bible student in Paul's day or our own day would immediately recognize the quoted verses which supply each answer as pointing to Jesus (A: "the angel is Jesus!"), and reminding that Jesus is a distinct person from Jehovah.
There is no reason to argue that the apostle Paul was asking trick questions. Here is each of Paul’s rhetorical questions, along with the earlier Scriptural references from which Paul quotes...
From Hebrews 1:5, the question posed:
Q: [quote]To which one of the angels did [God] ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"?[unquote]
The obvious answer:
To which angel? To the angel Jesus, the Christ, as Psalm 2 shows!
(Psalm 2:2-12) High officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one [footnote; "Christ"]... Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father..."
From Hebrews 1:5, the question posed:
Q: [quote]To which of one of the angels did [God] ever say: ..."I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?[unquote]
The obvious answer:
To which angel? To the angel Jesus, God's chosen King, as 2 Samuel 7 shows!
(2 Samuel 7:11-14) Jehovah has told you ... I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son
From Hebrews 1:13, the question posed:
Q: [quote]To which one of the angels has [God] ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”?[unquote]
The obvious answer:
To which angel? To the angel Jesus, who waited patiently for God's purposes to unfold, as Psalm 110 shows!
(Psalm 110:1) The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”
Remarkably, the only way this passage from Hebrews could possibly reconcile with trinitarianism is if one believes Paul was asking trick questions to confuse his readers.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.co.uk/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_06.htm
http://watchtower.co.uk/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_05.htm
http://watchtower.co.uk/e/rq/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
http://watchtower.co.uk/e/dg/index.htm?article=article_03.htm
http://watchtower.co.uk/e/lmn/index.htm?article=article_04.htm
2007-10-06 14:56:07 · answer #5 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
They believe that because they do. Why do you believe what you believe? Not meaning to be sarcastic, but it's simple as that. if I asked you "why do you believe what you believe?" you will probably just say "because I know that is the right thing to believe."
2007-10-06 14:57:23 · answer #6 · answered by just some chick 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The Chick (ABOVE ME) "Just Got IT" Right ! ! !
ON ! ! !
2007-10-06 15:00:37 · answer #7 · answered by . 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋