I agree with you that Immanuel can be associated with Jesus. I'm only arguing that by the same logic, so can Michael. But that's all a matter of opinion. In any case, the fact that Immanuel is Jesus invalidates your previous point does it not? Here is a reminder of what you previously said: "If Christ had another name, Peter surely did not know about it." By your own admission, scripture seems to suggest that Jesus DID in fact have at least ONE other name; Immanuel.
1. Yes He did. But unlike Immanuel, no where in scripture does it state Michael was one of them.
Again, I am in agreement with you on this fact. But the angelic realm is in fact the "realm" of heaven (which is the same realm where the angels worship Jesus). Perhaps I misunderstood what you are implying by realm.
2. I used the term angelic "hosts" who occupy the heavenly "realm". But more importantly is the distinction made between Christ and the angels in Heb 1:5-9, 13-14.
Fair enough. Then we have a genuine disagreement when it comes to scriptural interpretation. I tend not to consider "could possibly's" over what the text actually directly implies.
3. "Could possibly" and "implies" are synonymous terms. Direct implication, in our context, is a contradiction in terms. It's either a direct observation or it is implicated. It cannot be both.
The plain reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 seems to imply that Jesus is the one giving the "loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God".
4. The grammatical evidence suggests otherwise. The preposition "en" [with] associated with the dative nouns "shout", "voice", and "trumpet" suggest a time-- not an associative aspect. To associate Christ with the one shouting, the preposition "meta" would have been inspired. Meta denotes a sense of accompaniment:
Strongs G3326 μετά meta met-ah'--A primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly denoting accompaniment; amid (local or causal); modified variously according to the case (genitive case association, or accusative case succession) with which it is joined; occupying an intermediate position between G575 or G1537 and G1519 or G4314; less intimate than G1722, and less close than G4862): - after (-ward),X that he again, against, among, X and, + follow, hence, hereafter, in, of, (up-) on, + our, X and setting, since, (un-) to, + together, when, with (+ -out). Often used in composition, in substantially the same relations of participation or proximity, and transfer or sequence.
As opposed to "en":
A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); in, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion [descend is a verb of motion] , and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with [meta] quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with [en] a shout [dative], with [en] the voice [dative] of the archangel, and with [en] the trump [dative] of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
In the first passage, the preposition "meta" denoting accompaniment is utilized with the genitive noun "quietness". In contrast, our verse uses "en" which reflects an aspect of time with its dative nouns. The preposition "en" is translated "at" 113 times in the NT. In my humble opinion, inserting "at" instead of "with" would have been more consistent with the definitions above and better exemplified the separation between Christ and the angelic host we read about in Hebrews.
Michael is not mentioned in this passage, nor is the role of Michael relevant to salvation.
5. Neither are the rest of the angels, yet the bible states they will appear with Jesus.
If Michael was WITH Jesus at this time, then that begs the question WHY?
6. Because the scriptures testify angels will accompany Him (Mk 8:38)
This passage is not referencing any fight among angels (what Michael is known for). And IF Michael was WITH Jesus for such an uncharacteristic occasion, why then would Paul not mention him by name, therefore leaving no doubt that they are two different people?
7. Arguments from silence can be used to defend either one of our positions.
To me, there are just too many inconsistencies given how the passage is written to draw the conclusion that another archangel called Michael was with Jesus in this situation. But, that's just my opinion.
8. And you're certainly entitled to it. But I personally do not see any inconsistencies.
