• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are Jesus and Michael the same person?

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Savagewind,
It seems almost certain that Michael is the name of Jesus when he was originally in heaven, and that he has taken on that name again.
One reason I say that is because Jesus and Michael both do the things that Jesus is going to do.
Dan 12:1, says that Michael is to stand up for his people in the end times. In the following verses we see that there is to be much trouble, the same is to happen when Jesus comes into his Kingdom, Rev 6:2, and right after is the riders of the four Horses, 11:18, Rev 2:26,26, 19:11-21.
There are also many other scriptures in the Hebrew that prophecy the same things.
Of all scripture that tells me that Jesus and Michael are the same person is found at Jude 9, where it says that THE Archangel Michael disputed with Satan. There is only ONE Archangel. The title Archangel means Chief Angel.
Then 1Thess 4:15-17 says that the lord will descend from heaven with an archangels voice. Since there is only ONE Archangel, Jesus is that archangel.
Other scriptures that point toward Jesus as being Michael is found at Rev 12:1-12, where we see the birth of the Kingdom, then right after that we see Michael and the Devil engaged in war, where Michael throws the Devil and his angels out of heaven, down to the earth. Then WOE for the earth!!! This is what the Bible foretells would happen after Jesus gains power as King of the Kingdom, Rev 6:2-8, 11:15-18.
Jesus is to become the King of the Kingdom,Matt 19:28, Matt 24:29-31, 25:31-46, Rev 6:2, 11:15,17

Thanks. Many more people than you know are sure it is not Jesus who is described at Revelation 6:2. I am as certain as a person can be that it describes the false Christs that come in his name.

Also, how in the world do you know there is "only one Archangel"? Seeing that scripture was not written in English where English says "the" or "a", how do you KNOW? Or does it? Can you show us how you are able to know there is just one, please?
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thank you Jeremy.

Someone else must ask the Jehovah's Witnesses why they believe in just one archangel. Um they are not allowed to say a greeting to me. You might call it trolling and I would understand, but it is true. It is sad but true.

If anyone cared......

Ask how they know there is only one archangel.

Thank you.
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
Thank you Jeremy.

Someone else must ask the Jehovah's Witnesses why they believe in just one archangel. Um they are not allowed to say a greeting to me. You might call it trolling and I would understand, but it is true. It is sad but true.

If anyone cared......

Ask how they know there is only one archangel.

Thank you.

I'm currently explaining that I'm a co-heir of Christ. LOL!!! Peg's a little freaked out by now. LOL!!! :D
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm currently explaining that I'm a co-heir of Christ. LOL!!! Peg's a little freaked out by now. LOL!!! :D

Yes. I think you are writing "of" on purpose. Is that not so? The reason why I say so (I'm not really saying but writing I suppose) is my mind tends to go with with not of. And that means something.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But I'm the only one who knows it does. It's OK.

I am reasoning from the scriptures.
1. they say Jesus is Michael because Michael is call "archangel"
2. Archangel means chief angel and Jesus is The Chief
3. There can only be one chief, they say
4. Exodus 18:25 says Israel had many chiefs.
5. The discrepancy is lost on them. Yes or no?
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
Yes. I think you are writing "of" on purpose. Is that not so? The reason why I say so (I'm not really saying but writing I suppose) is my mind tends to go with with not of. And that means something.

I don't understand.

Edit:
Now I understand and yes, "of" is of the essence.
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You should not feel bad or heaven forbid, insulted, that I say I knew that. It is because nobody does.
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
I knew that. Now I think you care. The way I understand it is Christ's brothers (and sisters) are coheirs with Christ, not of him.

I do not know what being a coheir of someone means.

I think we are saying the same thing. Jesus also shares the throne of the Father. Being a co-heir means to share the possessions of that title. Which in this case means everything.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I was considering Jesus the Son and Michael the Arch Angel, Michael the Arch Angel, St.Michael - General of Gods Armies.
They are not the same individual, Jesus the son and Michael the standard of Gods Armies.

I have respect for this Sir.

Quis ut Deus: Who is "like" God?


Even though Jesus is unquestionably excellent in the art of war.

That raises the question of why Jesus is not delegating this task to Michael. Is it becuase only God can bring this kind of Judgement?
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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.

I enjoyed this exposition of the Greek but I think saying "at a shout" would not be proper English but one could say "at the time of a shout" and that would incorporate the central meaning of the word.

However I believe the central meaning of the word eliminates the concept that Jesus had the voice of an archangel.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Revelation 112 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[a] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

That's Jesus. Yes, or no?

Matthew 17:2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

That is Jesus for sure.

Daniel 10:5 there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. 6 His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult. 7 Now I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great dread fell on them, and they ran away to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great vision; yet no strength was left in me, for my natural color turned to a deathly pallor, and I retained no strength....13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia...16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I feel very weak. 20 So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11:1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.).

In this vision of Daniel the one speaking to Daniel (the glorified son of man) and the one touching him (the man Jesus?) are the essential characters. Michael is not present but is someone else.

If you ever get the time and opportunity you might want to read The Urantia Book, at least the part about the existence of Jesus. It takes the mystery out of your question.
 
Top