Actually, Jesus can be (and is) called "Michael" right now.
The idea is hardly central to their faith, and Jehovah's Witnesses rarely choose to highlight it during a casual conversation about their beliefs. Nevertheless, the totality of the bible makes this a rather straightforward conclusion.
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
2007-10-16 00:39:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by achtung_heiss 7
·
9⤊
1⤋
We were told they were one and the same. However a careful reading of the scriptures in context will inform the reader that they are not the same.
I see some Jehovahs Witnesses using verses to prove that Jesus and Michael are the same. However those verses do not make them the same. I can understand them using the verses. Those are the same ones I used for years. Now thankfully, I see those verses had nothing to do with proving Jesus and Michael are the same.
Sadly Jehovah's Witnesses read the bible thru the Watchtower interpertation.
2007-10-23 08:56:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are differences for sure:
Jesus forgave sins, no archangel forgave sins. The Jewish leaders were correct in saying “Only God can forgive sins.”
Some Jehovah’s Witnesses will use Jude 9 to show Jesus is Michael. In this verse Michael says, “The Lord rebuke.” However Jesus never had a problem rebuking Satan.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 is also used by Witnesses to make a link, but this not conclusive at all. The verse reads “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” Using the watchtower logic, Jesus is also God since He is with God’s trumpet. To conclude Jesus is Michael from this verse requires reading in to the verse.
If a speaker enters a stage with the voice of the announcer, does that make them the same? According to watchtower logic, the answer is yes.
I look for many thumbs down by JWs
2007-10-23 05:07:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by WhatIf 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Jesus is different than all the other angels, although he being the Chief of Angels, he is also the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON of God. The rest of creation are created through Jesus. Jesus is also the Christ,the Word and our Lord.
Now, regarding Jesus as the Archangel. Please notice these Bible texts.
However, the friend of the bridegroom, when he stands and hears him, has a great deal of joy on account of the voice of the bridegroom. John 3:29 – Who owns the voice of the bridegroom? And the one who owns the voice of the bridegroom is the bridegroom himself, isn’t he?
1 The 4:16 states “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
Who has the voice of an archangel who have a commanding call and when the dead hears that archangel’s voice that they in turn was raised up in union with Christ? The owner of that archangel’s voice is Jesus.
Just like in John 3:29 , the one with the voice of the bridegroom is the bridegroom himself, so in 1 The 4:16 the one with the voice of the archangel who can raise the dead, is also an archangel.
Just think of this, if Jesus can be a human, why can’t he be the archangel which means Chief of Angels.
(Job 38:4,7) When [Jehovah] founded the earth... When the morning STARs [or "angels"] joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause
(Revelation 22:16) I, Jesus... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the BRIGHT morning STAR.
2007-10-16 05:01:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by trustdell1 3
·
5⤊
2⤋
No. And that is according to Jesus Christ himself. John 4:23—"Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him." Notice that Jesus very clearly says that true worshippers ..."will worship THE FATHER... in truth". That Jesus is Jehovah's only-begotten son may be found in the same book of John at 1:14 and 3:16. The truth, then, is that anyone that worships the Son is NOT a true worshipper, according to Jesus himself. What is the opposite of true? That would be, in any language, "False". Therefore, simple reasoning and logic could have us read Jesus' statement this way: "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the FALSE worshipers will worship the Son ...". Say what you will about us, but the words from the book of John quoted above were spoken by Jesus himself. If you feel that he has spoken in error or that you disagree with his statement about true worshipers, then I suggest you best take it up with him.
2016-05-22 22:22:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
What other Commentators Have Said
Many who criticise Jehovah's Witnesses for their views don't realise that a number of Protestant sources agree with the Witness position.
“As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people.” - John Calvin. (See Calvin's writings online at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol25/htm/vii.htm)
“Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it.” - John Wesley's commentary on Daniel 10:21. (See Wesley's writings online at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/daniel.htm)
“a) The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.” - Geneva Bible Commentary. (See http://www.ccel.org/g/geneva/notes/Daniel/12.html)
The objection that Christ can not be called an angel, because Hebrews 1:4 says that he was “made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they” is unfounded.
Note that he inherited, obtained the name, not that he always had it. When Hebrews chapter 1 refers to the angels, it means the angels in general. It does not necessarily have to imply that Christ can't be called an angel. When Luke 21:29 refers to “the fig tree and all the trees”, it doesn't mean that the fig tree isn't a tree too. Likewise, when the Bible refers to Christ and the angels, it doesn't have to imply that he's not an angel.
Clearly, although Jesus is called an angel in the Bible, he is far from being like the other angels. The Watchtower commented: “The basic meaning of “angel” (Hebrew, mal·'akh´; Greek, ag´ge·los) is “messenger.” As the “Word” (Greek, lo´gos), Jesus is God's messenger par excellence.” (15/12/1984, page 29.)
.
2007-10-16 04:33:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by TeeM 7
·
7⤊
1⤋
it is very simple read the book of Daniel 12:1 ans see Michael bringiing a great tribulation and resurrecting people.
the majority of people don´t know that all angels are sons of God read the book of Job 1:6 and 2:1.
also the bible call gods to the sons of God in Psalms 82:6.
So a son of God can be an angel and god not almighty.
2007-10-16 00:45:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
0⤋
Take the time,
sit and search the Scriptures w/ a Witness.
At best, you / we
all could stand to learn something.
Jesus is the Archangel, Michael.
My brothers & sisters in the faith
have already provided the Scriptures.
2007-10-18 10:30:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
YES; Jesus is The Arch-Angel that the Bible Speaks About !
he
2007-10-16 00:37:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by . 7
·
8⤊
0⤋
Why don't you believe Jesus is also Michael the archangel? Who do you think he is?
If you want help on this topic, who do you want it from? Jehovah's Witnesses or from those who agree with you that Michael and Jesus are not the same?
Aside from Michael, no archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor do the Scriptures use the term “archangel” in the plural. The Bible describes Michael as the archangel, implying that he alone bears that designation. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jehovah God has delegated to one, and only one, of his heavenly creatures full authority over all other angels.
Aside from the Creator himself, only one faithful person is spoken of as having angels under subjection—namely, Jesus Christ. (Matt. 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thess. 1:7) And Peter described the resurrected Jesus by saying: “He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.” 1 Peter 3:22.
In his letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul prophesied: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) In this scripture Jesus is described as having assumed his power as God’s Messianic King. Yet, he speaks with “an archangel’s voice. Note that he has the power to raise the dead.
After his own resurrection, Jesus was raised to a “superior position” in heaven as a spirit creature. (Phil. 2:9) No longer a human, he has the voice of an archangel. So when God’s trumpet sounded the call for “those who are dead in union with Christ” to be raised to heaven, Jesus issued “a commanding call,” this time “with an archangel’s voice.” It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.”
Yes, there are other angelic creatures of high rank, such as seraphs and cherubs. (Genesis 3:24; Isaiah 6:2) Yet, the Scriptures point to the resurrected Jesus Christ as the chief of all angels—Michael the archangel.
Now let me ask you something. What verse in the Bible specifically says that the Word at John 1:1 is Jesus Christ? Not one! But when we examine the context of scriptures, we conclude that the Word must be Jesus. The same thing goes with Michael and Jesus. After examining the details from the Bible, it becomes clear that Jesus and Michael must be the same person.
Here is something else for you to consider. As "the firstborn of very creature," Jesus was created first as God's only-begotten Son. (Col. 1:15; John 3:17) His pre-human name was Michael. It couldn't have been Jesus, which means "salvation of Jehovah." Why? At that time, nothing in the universe needed salvation. But after Adam rebelled against God, his offspring needed to be saved from sin and death. Jesus was sent as "God's means of salvation," thus the name "Jesus." (Luke 2:30)
2007-10-15 23:38:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by LineDancer 7
·
8⤊
3⤋