Jesus and Michael - One and the same? (exodus, virgin)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by No*s

No, I don't believe that it can be. For instance in vv. 1.8-9, we have the famous passage, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...Therefore God, Your God, has annointed You..." which is very difficult to take as some honorific deity. Following it, is a similar statement "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth..." and so on. In the Old Testament, this refers to the LORD (I'm avoiding the Tetragrammaton, not shouting). However, in contrast to this, the author of hebrews argues that the angels must worship him and that they are ministers made a flame of fire. He's not talking about a difference in deeds, but a difference in stature in the context.

Hi No*s, namaste.

Thank you for the verse reference. I looked it up and from my perspective, it does not preclude the possible interpretation that I suggested. I concede, however, that I don't know my bible as well as you guys do and may thus be overlooking references contained therein to other parts the bible that would support the orthodox position.

Hebrews 1 (New International Version)

The Son Superior to Angels

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

5For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”

7In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.”

8But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

10He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”

13To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

From the text (v8), it's quite clear that the Father calls the Son "God" and exalts him above the (other) angels. However, it doesn't say that this was always the case. I asked in my previous post if Jesus/Michael might not have made himself exalted by his actions and vv3-4 seem to support that.

3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

The implication there is that he was not as superior before but achieved it after his death and ressurection. Granted, I am relying on this translation (as I do not read Greek) and will gladly listen if you can show me how the translation is wrong.

Even the wording of the verse that you directly reference:

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

to me, suggests that Jesus/Michael was an angel, or in essence like an angel, who was then set above his companions - adopted by the Father and made God - because of his loyal service.

No*s, ultimately, I agree with NetDoc that the most important thing in Christianity to me is Jesus' message of love. So for me, this discussion is an exploration of the text, and it's not my intention or desire to try to turn anyone's beliefs. I am very aware of the fact that I am arguing in favor of what you believe to be a heresy of the worst kind, and I thank you for your open-minded discourse with me.

-lilith

[No*s]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Hi No*s, namaste.

Thank you for the verse reference. I looked it up and from my perspective, it does not preclude the possible interpretation that I suggested. I concede, however, that I don't know my bible as well as you guys do and may thus be overlooking references contained therein to other parts the bible that would support the orthodox position.

That's OK. Nobody is informed in all the subjects . There's more than enough room for us all.

Originally Posted by lilithus

From the text (v8), it's quite clear that the Father calls the Son "God" and exalts him above the (other) angels. However, it doesn't say that this was always the case. I asked in my previous post if Jesus/Michael might not have made himself exalted by his actions and vv3-4 seem to support that.

The implication there is that he was not as superior before but achieved it after his death and ressurection. Granted, I am relying on this translation (as I do not read Greek) and will gladly listen if you can show me how the translation is wrong.

Even the wording of the verse that you directly reference:

to me, suggests that Jesus/Michael was an angel, or in essence like an angel, who was then set above his companions - adopted by the Father and made God - because of his loyal service.

You are right about vv 3-4, it does say "became." However, the assumptions we're reading in supplied by the conversation. The first thing I'd point out, though, is that this passage seems to be rebuffing the idea that Christ was an angel (there was a localized heresy, the Ebionites that taught that). In the following verses, it keeps saying things like "to which of the anges did He say" in order to draw a contrast between Christ and the angels. In this context, we must supply an understood "other" or the passage makes a very clear statement that Jesus isn't an angel.

It seems to normally be a good rule not to assume an understood rule if the text in question makes sense without it and if it there is no grammatical reason to do so. In this case, neither are neccessary to understand the passage. This wouldn't be the first text that could be turned on its head by supplying a single word unneccessarily.

In order to explain "became" and v8, I must make two allusions in order to show a historic comparison of the two. First, I'll proceed to Philippians 2.6-11 (*yay* my favorite verse). In it, Paul writes that Christ has the same nature as God (morphi), and it means exactly what it says. Then, it proceeds to say that He didn't consider it "arpagmos" to be equal with God. Normally, this is a thing that is stolen and is the translation in the KJV. Another sense, is that it is something to be grasped to be defended from being stolen. That's the tack the NIV takes. The third sense is that it means something to be exploited, which is more like slange, and is used in the NRSV (my favorite translation of the word). Christ didn't exploit His equality. In all three senses, Christ didn't consder it wrong, no matter the shade of the word, to be equal with God. Instead, He became a slave and suffered.

So here we have the suffering God, and He suffers and dies. Next, though, in the text, we find Him resurrected and exalted. How, if He is equal to God, may he be exalted? The answer, simply, is that He had emptied Himself in becoming a man, and that He had given up His glory. In returning to the Father, He received again His glory and became evidently much as He was...only now united to a body.

The next thing I will reference you is Justin Martyr. He likened the Father to a fire, and this fire sybolized the properties of God. From the first fire comes another fire, symbolizing the persons. The Son comes from the Father, but He is not the Father. He has the same properties as the Father, but being another Fire is another person. It is the Father who is the core of all creation and the Godhead, and the Son is mysteriously begotten from Him but is the same. This is the doctrine Justin had received (he's a bit over-analytical on it IMO lol), and he relates it. The Father being the core of the Godhead, is also the only one in Justin's mind to exalt Christ.

Now, when we take these two texts together, we have a compelling explanation for the "become" and why God would give Him a greater allotment than His friends (this would include people and angels...Jesus, after all, clearly had friends on earth). It doesn't require us to insert "other" in order to make Christ a being of the same order that He is being compared to. It allows the verse to be taken at face value, which would be a refutation of a certain set of teachings, in this case the Ebionites in the late first century. In short, supplying the assumptions from the era makes the text easily interpretable.

However, supplying "other" complicates things. The first chapter is clearly trying to refute a belief, and in this case we may see that it is ascribing to Christ angelic properties. If we have to supply an understood "other," then we make the entire argument cumbersome at best, and senseless at worst. Further, Greek doesn't often allow for the insertion of the term, and when it does, the context makes it abundantly clear (I can actually only think of one instance).

I believe that that might give a plenary account of the terminology . I hope I wasn't too verbose. I just had to appeal to near-contemporary literature (Paul is maybe half a century earlier, and Justin about seventy years later).

Originally Posted by lilithu

No*s, ultimately, I agree with NetDoc that the most important thing in Christianity to me is Jesus' message of love. So for me, this discussion is an exploration of the text, and it's not my intention or desire to try to turn anyone's beliefs. I am very aware of the fact that I am arguing in favor of what you believe to be a heresy of the worst kind, and I thank you for your open-minded discourse with me.

Well, I'm not often arguing on this site to persuade people. An argument on the internet rarely does that, and when it does, it does so only after the other side has gone through and done their work on the side. I'm just on here debating to entertain myself. I'm looking for a job, and there aren't many places to apply. So, when I've got my attempts for the day done, I come here and amuse myself .

You're right about the heresy bit, but I only get angry when I think someone is being dishonest, deliberately obtuse, or uses heresy as a grounds to impugn upon me or my Church. Good discussion doesn't bother me a bit. I kind of like it .

BTW, I keep meaning to ask...what is "namaste?" IIRC, it's an Indian greeting, but the mind is fickle.

[lilithu]

Hi No*s, namaste. What can I say? I'm not entirely convinced by your arguments but they seem to be well-argued and internally consistent, so I see no point in continuing to question you about it. I will even concede that I have my own biases - outside of scripture - that cause me to take the positions that I take. (They don't have the authority of tradition behind them but they are compelling to me personally.)

Originally Posted by No*s

BTW, I keep meaning to ask...what is "namaste?" IIRC, it's an Indian greeting, but the mind is fickle.

Yes it's a Hindu greeting, and a sign of respect. However, I fear that it's a sign of respect that might offend some people so I usually do not go out of my way to explain what it means. It translates roughly as, "I acknowledge, or offer my respects, to the divine that is within you." I use it occasionally because it so perfectly expresses my own view of the nature of God and of man and our relation to each other. And it serves to remind me to (try to) respect everyone by seeing divinity within everyone.

However, not everyone shares my views of God's immanence within humanity. For atheists/agnostics, I imagine that the sentiment is just plain silly. For many Jews, Christians, and most Muslims, I imagine that it's a heresy. IIRC, Eastern Orthodoxy may be more receptive to the idea expressed in "namaste." For others of the Abrahamic faiths, the idea that transcendant God is anything but "wholly other" from humanity is inconceivable. I had thought that Catholics believe in immanence but a Christian friend of mine says that's not the case. Perhaps that topic is worthy of its own thread.

-lilith

[No*s]

No problem. I like to discuss, which is the point I'm on this board. I just try to make my points consistent within themselves with themselves and accurate...as far as I can know. It was a fun discussion, and that's one of my main purposes on here: to have fun.

No problem on namaste. That's more than I knew about the definition, but I was in the right ballpark...and I'm not offended by it in the least. I pretty much let people greet me as they see fit, and I've very rarely been anywhere near offended. I'm pretty secure in my faith, so someone wishing me well doesn't hurt me one bit .

Is it compatible with Orthodoxy? That is a thread within itself. The Hindu concept isn't compatible, no, but it's going to be more compatible with us than many others, mainly because there's a strong mystical element involved. We're a bit odd among the denominations .

Nonetheless, have a good evening/day.

[may]

The

Bible’s Answer

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. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of "the Lord Jesus" and "his powerful angels." (2 Thessalonians 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.

While there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus, there is one scripture that links Jesus with the office of archangel. 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, too, that he has the power to raise the dead.

While on earth as a human, Jesus performed several resurrections. In doing so, he used his voice to utter commanding calls. For example, when resurrecting the dead son of a widow in the city of Nain, he said: "Young man, I say to you, Get up!" (Luke 7:14, 15) Later, just before resurrecting his friend Lazarus, Jesus "cried out with a loud voice: ‘Lazarus, come on out!’" (John 11:43) But on these occasions, Jesus’ voice was the voice of a perfect man.

After his own resurrection, Jesus was raised to a "superior position" in heaven as a spirit creature. (Philippians 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.

[t3gah]

Originally Posted by may

The Bible’s Answer

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. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of "the Lord Jesus" and "his powerful angels." (2 Thessalonians 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.

While there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus, there is one scripture that links Jesus with the office of archangel. 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, too, that he has the power to raise the dead.

While on earth as a human, Jesus performed several resurrections. In doing so, he used his voice to utter commanding calls. For example, when resurrecting the dead son of a widow in the city of Nain, he said: "Young man, I say to you, Get up!" (Luke 7:14, 15) Later, just before resurrecting his friend Lazarus, Jesus "cried out with a loud voice: ‘Lazarus, come on out!’" (John 11:43) But on these occasions, Jesus’ voice was the voice of a perfect man.

After his own resurrection, Jesus was raised to a "superior position" in heaven as a spirit creature. (Philippians 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.

Text above from Awake! magazine (February 8, 2002. pages 16-17) "Who is Michael the Archangel?"


So in John 1 when Jesus is said to be God, Michael is also God then since the document posted by you has many convincing arguments that show that Michael and Jesus are one and the same through deeds and hierarchy. I know the New World Translation differs from every bible out there that has "the word was God" into something else which still means he was God so, Michael is the archangel and Jesus is the man that came from holy spirit, became a man, ascended to heaven to become Michael the archangel again only to say to the apostles that watched Jesus ascend to heaven that he, Jesus, would thus return in the same manner. So will he be Jesus the man or Michael the archangel?

[HelpMe]

Originally Posted by t3gah

So in John 1 when Jesus is said to be God, Michael is also God...

i've said it before and i'll say it again, do a study on the words translated to 'god' and the broad(compared to what you or trinitarians allow) meanings they have.

[may]

[quote=t3gah]Text above from Awake! magazine (February 8, 2002. pages 16-17) "Who is Michael the Archangel?"yes, very informative too, good to see you are feeding on the right food(matthew 24; 45)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by t3gah

So in John 1 when Jesus is said to be God, Michael is also God then since the document posted by you has many convincing arguments that show that Michael and Jesus are one and the same through deeds and hierarchy. I know the New World Translation differs from every bible out there that has "the word was God" into something else which still means he was God so, Michael is the archangel and Jesus is the man that came from holy spirit, became a man, ascended to heaven to become Michael the archangel again only to say to the apostles that watched Jesus ascend to heaven that he, Jesus, would thus return in the same manner. So will he be Jesus the man or Michael the archangel? So will he be Jesus the man or Michael the archangel?

Personally, I do not have a problem with this at all. In my view, all the angels are emanations of God anyway, separate from but united with God. They do the will of God. Michael is archangel, above all others, most likely created first, before the others. Jesus is described as having been the Word before he was incarnated, and the Word also does the will of God. (God said "let there be light" and there was light.) The Logos is the means by which God acts, again separate from but united with God. So the highest of all angels and the Logos could be one and the same, and once Michael/Logos incarnated as a human being, he became Jesus. Once Jesus died and was ressurected, he became the Christ.

Now whether Jesus and Michael are indeed one and the same, I don't know. I can see how for a trinitarian this idea is apalling, because it takes away from the uniqueness of Jesus' divinity. But coming from my God-is-in-everything viewpoint, the idea seems as plausible as not. The only thing that I don't like about the Jesus=Michael idea is that it mars the symmetry of the four archangels - between Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel. But I've discussed en