• 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!

Jesus and Michael - One and the same?

t3gah

Well-Known Member
I've been researching this one for awhile now. There are many who state a certain passage that says that 'archangels voice' means that when Jesus returns in the second coming that he will in fact be Michael the archangel.

I'm having a tough time with this whole interpretation of 'voice' denoting 'being'. The scripture is: 1 Thessalonians 4:16
[World English Bible]
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God’s trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first,
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
I am speaking to you with the word of God.
I enter with the glory of a king.
I teach with the knowledge of Plato.

I could go on. None of these things rquire I be the thing in the prepositional clause. It's really kind of a bad exegesis (and I do know where you got it and your feelings there ;) ).
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
t3gah said:
I've been researching this one for awhile now. There are many who state a certain passage that says that 'archangels voice' means that when Jesus returns in the second coming that he will in fact be Michael the archangel.
I wouldn't say many. There are some. This is most notably a belief of the 7th Day Adventists. Are there other sects/denominations that teach this?

I too would really be interested if someone could shed light on this interpretation.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
t3gah said:
I've been researching this one for awhile now. There are many who state a certain passage that says that 'archangels voice' means that when Jesus returns in the second coming that he will in fact be Michael the archangel.



I'm having a tough time with this whole interpretation of 'voice' denoting 'being'. The scripture is: 1 Thessalonians 4:16
[World English Bible]

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God’s trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first,​
there is not one instance of the greek nt being written as such and referring to the object not believing to the subject.there's a ton more scriptures that prove it more conclusively to me.
 

t3gah

Well-Known Member
HelpMe said:
there is not one instance of the greek nt being written as such and referring to the object not believing to the subject.there's a ton more scriptures that prove it more conclusively to me.
Do you mean you know of scriptures that prove that Jesus is Jesus and Michael is Michael but no scriptures prove thae Michael is Jesus?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
It is amazing to me how people misuse the scriptures t3gah! I agree with your having a "tough time" accepting this. Don't! :D

The point of Scripture is to get us "ready" for service. When properly used, our lives change and we learn how to love even as Jesus loved.

Many use the scriptures to sow discord and to destroy harmony. They think that THEY have the true insight and are puffed up by this new found "knowledge". Instead of teaching things that bring about a change of heart, they concentrate on the superfluous (like exposing the trinity). Instead of looking to the scriptures for ways to change their OWN heart they are looking for ways to convolute it to prove how "insightful" they are. It's always best to be a true fundamentalist... get BACK to the fundamentals of Christianity... Love, Joy, Mercy, Peace etc. You know; the fruits of the Spirit as found in Galations 5.
 

t3gah

Well-Known Member
lilithu said:
I wouldn't say many. There are some. This is most notably a belief of the 7th Day Adventists. Are there other sects/denominations that teach this?

I too would really be interested if someone could shed light on this interpretation.
The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society teaches that the angel in the Exodus where there was a pillar of cloud in behind the people walking or a pillar of fire in the front of the people walking is none other than Michael the Archangel. They also teach that Jesus and Michael are the same Angel. Jesus was a man. "Son of man" in his own words.

I've posted the cross-references on my "Errors in Bible translations..." thread. There's no evidence to suggest that Jesus and Michael are the same angels because of what I just stated. Jesus or Immanuel, was born through the virgin Mary and Michael the Archangel is a angel in heaven. The book of John states that Jesus was the "Word", not "Michael". And that the "Word" was in the beginning, not "Michael the Archangel". In Revelation, Michael the Archangel battles with the Dragon. Does the NWT have cross-references to Jesus from Revelation, Michael the Archangel? Nope, only to the name Michael throughout the NWT bible.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=archangel

A scripture in Proverbs comes to mind. I'm gonna check that one out too. In fact I'm checking all the cross-references in the NWT.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
NetDoc said:
Many use the scriptures to sow discord and to destroy harmony. They think that THEY have the true insight and are puffed up by this new found "knowledge".
easily reminds me of many trinitarians.
NetDoc said:
Instead of teaching things that bring about a change of heart, they concentrate on the superfluous (like *exposing the trinity*).
*or proving it in most people's case.*
NetDoc said:
get BACK to the fundamentals of Christianity... Love, Joy, Mercy, Peace etc.
ataboy!!
t3gah said:
Do you mean you know of scriptures that prove that Jesus is Jesus and Michael is Michael but no scriptures prove thae Michael is Jesus?
what?...

no, michael is much more easily yeshua according to scripture than yeshua is almighty.
 

t3gah

Well-Known Member
HelpMe said:
easily reminds me of many trinitarians.
*or proving it in most people's case.*
ataboy!!
what?...

no, michael is much more easily yeshua according to scripture than yeshua is almighty.
neat play on words. does this mean youa re never going to reveal which scriptures you had in mind when you commented the first time?
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
wasn't playing on words....


sure i'll share when i get home if i remember in about 3 hours.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
HelpMe said:
no, michael is much more easily yeshua according to scripture than yeshua is almighty.
That's what I'm thinking too. I don't want to get into an argument about trinity, but it seems to me that the scriptures could just as easily be interpreted in this way. To say that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God" does not prove that the Word (ie - Jesus) is God. It could merely suggest that out of all created beings, the Word was there first. Since Michael is the first among angels, it doesn't seem like that big a leap to equate them.

(I have no stake in the truth of any of these claims. I'm just interested in the different possible meanings that can be interpreted from scripture.)
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
thanks lilith.

here are some old notes, they are not exaustive.

one very important thing to remember is that 'angel' means 'messenger', and 'jesus' was most certainly a messenger.and that 'god' does not mean 'almighty'.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of
Michael:

"It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882


Matthew Henry Commentary:
Concerning Revelation 12:9 in Henry’s unabridged and concise commentaries.
2. The parties-Michael and his angels on one side, and the dragon and his angels on the other: Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This latter party would be much superior in number and outward strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having the Lord Jesus for the captain of their salvation.
Verses 7-11 The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.

Concerning Daniel 10 in Henry’s unabridged commentary.
Here is Michael our prince, the great protector of the church, and the patron of its just but injured cause: The first of the chief princes, v. 13. Some understand it of a created angel, but an archangel of the highest order, 1 Th. 4:16; Jude 9. Others think that Michael the archangel is no other than Christ himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels, he whom Daniel saw in vision, v. 5.

John Wesley:
Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13.1 For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.
Wesley on Daniel 10:21
Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes
of the earth desert or oppose it.

Geneva Study Bible:
Da 12:1
12:1 And at that {a} time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since
there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
(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.
Da 10:1310:13 But the {h} prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, {i} Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (h) Meaning Cambyses, who reigned in his father's absence, and did not only for this time hinder the building of the temple, but would have further raged, if God had not sent me to resist him: and therefore I have stayed for the profit of the Church. (i) Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even
Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels.

"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis i., p. 296) objects to this explanation, and says, 'in this case it is impossible to imagine why the Archangel should be mentioned as fighting with the dragon, and not the child that was caught up to the throne of God.' But we have already replied to this in the commentary, where we said, 'if Michael be Christ, the question arises why Michael is mentioned here instead of Christ'. The answer to this is, that the name Michael [Who is like God?, that is, 'Who dares to claim that they are like God?'] contains in itself an intimation that the work referred to here, the decisive victory over Satan, belongs to Christ, not as human, but rather as divine [compare 1 John iii. 8]. Moreover, this name forms a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. Even in the Old Testament, Michael is represented as the great prince, who fights on
behalf of the Church (Dan. xii. 1).' The conflict there alluded to was a prediction and prelude of the one mentioned hero. The further objections offered by Hofmann rest upon his very remarkable interpretation of chap. xii., which is not likely to be adopted by any who are capable of examining for themselves."

—Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the
Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
Paul says, 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and the dead
in Christ will rise first.' I Thes. iv. 16. From this text it appears
that when the Lord shall descend with a shout, his voice will be that of
the Archangel, or head Messenger; therefore the Lord must be that head
Messenger. This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the
Archangel; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be raised by his
voice. He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and
they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming,
in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." John v. 26,
28, 29.

Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the words Michael, and Angel says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dic- tionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist. Buck in his Theological Dictionary says, under the article Angel, d) that Christ is in scripture frequently called an Angel.[1] Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
Doc- tor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an Angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim. Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 page of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annotations, explains those passages where the Lord appeared to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as referring to Jesus Christ. Bunyan makes the pilgrim ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He says, "Blessed Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Progress, Cincinnati edition, page 54. Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev.
xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
Doctor Watts in his [G]lories of Christ, page 200, 201, 202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's presence Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Being that God ever created. I agree with them that Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot see the propriety of calling the pre-existent Christ a human soul, seeing he did not descend from humans but existed before the human family was created.

E.W. Hengstenberg, in his Christologie des Alten Testaments und Kommentar uber die messianischen Weissagungen, Bd. iii. 2 Aufl. 1857 identifies the archangel Michael with the Logos-Christ.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was
Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.

"the influence of the late-Jewish speculation about the archangel Michael in the earlier period of Post-Apostolic Christianity helped to preserve the Angel-Christology: indeed it even provided new stimulus for the further development of Christology. In his day Wilhelm Bousset had already alluded to the fact, being the first to do so, in his writing about the 'Antichrist'. The figure of the archangel Michael had perhaps already influenced Philo's speculation about the Logos, and Philo bad affected Christian authors of the Post-Apostolic period. in any case Philo did not identify the Logos with the Messiah, but with an archangel,s and he predicated to him that which was appropriate to the archangel Michael. Thus the late-Jewish speculation about Michael (which imparted Messianic traits to the archangel), the Philonic Logos-doctrine and the PostApostolic Logos-Christology appear in a sequence and indicate that the late-Jewish doctrine of angels was their common presupposition."
Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 133
Clement of Alexandria, 153—193—217 C.E. explains:
Formerly the older people [the Israelites] had an old covenant, and the law disciplined the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but the fresh and new people [the Christians] has also been given a new covenant, and the Word has appeared, and fear turned into love, and that mystic angel is born—Jesus.—The Instructor, Book I, chapter VII (7); ANF, Vol. II, p. 224.
Hippolytus, 170—236 C.E.:
"And lo, Michael." and Who is Michael but the angel assigned to the people? As (God) says to Moses. "I will not go with you in the way, because the people are stiff-necked; but my angel shall go with you.—Scholia On Daniel, 13; ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 190. (Compare, Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 3; 32:34; 1 Corinthians 10:4; Insight On The Scriptures, Volume 2, p. 816, paragraph 9.)
Melito, 160-170-177 C.E.: (estimated dates of composition):
He who in the law is the Law; among the priests, Chief Priest; among kings, the Ruler; among prophets, the Prophet; among the angels, Archangel; in the voice of the preacher, the Word; among spirits, the Spirit; in the Father, the Son; in God, God; King for ever and ever.—On Faith; ANF, Vol. VIII (FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=icon_cool.gif", pp. 756-7.
In Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning The Shepherd of Hermas, of the 2nd or 3rd century:
In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael...Christ's pre-existence, was generally taken for granted, as was His role creation as well as redemption. This theme, which could point to Pauline and Johannine parallels, chimed in very easily with creative functions assigned to Wisdom in later Judaism...There is evidence also...of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel ... Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign, although the Church's triadic formula left its mark everywhere—pp. 94-5.
(see also Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible)-The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.
"For Justin the Logos-Christ was, therefore, the archistrategos, the highest angel-prince and leader of the angelic host." Werner, ibid. 135










keep in mind there are some trinitarian sects that believe michael is jesus and [yhwh].


here's scriptural notes


Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 25:31; 2Thes.1:7).
Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19).
At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel. The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the subject in the clause.

See: BAGD, page 878, [FWNH/phone - 1. Voice]
All these references have 'phone' (FWNH) in an oblique case, genitive or dative, thus signifying not just a noise, but a voice.
+ [Re 5:2] NRSV And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice:
[ EN FWNHi (dat.) MEGALH (WH)]
+ Re 14:7 (cf 9)] NRSV said in a loud voice: [ LEGWN EN FWNHi (dat.)
MEGALH (WH) ]
+ Joh 5:28] NRSV Do not astonished at this; for the hour is coming in
which all those who are in their graves will hear his voice [ AKOUSOUSIN
THS FWNHS (gen.) AUTOU (WH) ]
+ 1Th 4:16 ] NWT because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with
a commanding call, [ EN KELEUSMATI (WH) ] with an archangel's voice [ EN
FWNHi (dat.) ARXAGGELOU (WH) ] and with God's trumpet, and those who are
dead in union with Christ will rise first.
+ Ac 9:7 ] NRSV (not referenced in BAGD) The men who were traveling
with him stood speechless because they heard the voice, [ AKOUONTES MEN THS FWNHS (gen.) (WH) ] but saw no one.
See also: Lu 4:33; Rev 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 14:7,9,15,18;19:17; Ac 7:60.

What about Heb 1:5, "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee?" The main point of Hebrews 1 is to elevate Jesus above the angels (an elevation that an Almighty would not need). Hence the ARCH in ARCHangel. For more click here.
If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not be appropriate.
Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26).
But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf Dan.12:2).
Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1).
Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).
In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21)
Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.


Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious.
Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10)
The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29).
The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16)
Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his angels" who does this in Revelation 12

Who is a higher ("highest ranking messenger")messenger than jesus?I don't believe anyone is.


+++michaels name(=like god) and status(archangel after jesus' life) changes+++both applied to jesus @
Heb1:2-4
"2has in these last days spoken to us by the Son, whom He has appointed heir of all, through whom also He made the ages,a 3who being the brightness of the esteem and the exact representation of His sub- stance, and sustaining all by the word of His power, having made a cleansing of our sins through Himself, sat down at the right hand of the Greatness on high, 4having become so much better than the messengers, as He has inherited a more excellent Name than them."


michael was/is jesus' name as one of the chief angels[dan10:13](now archangel[jude1:9] due to what was accomplished[dan10:21], i mean the rescue of us all[dan12:1(referenced also to jesus @ Dan9:12 who is the coming PRINCE @Dan9:25{Dan10:13})]).jesus christ was the greatest name(Php2:9*) which was given(Mt1:18,21,25:+php2:9*) along with becoming superior(heb1:2-4^) ,a reward for what he did(heb1:2-4^).And michael did(rev12:7+8 ) what jesus was promised to do(Ge3:15).The meaning of michaels god-given name("like god") applied to jesus @ (Php2:9*).Jesus the angel(Ga4:14[Rev1:1 & 3:14 & 22:16]),michael of course is an angel.


What does the bible plainly say to me?(plz tell me if you say any of these are unscriptural)
1.jesus is an angel
2.jesus was elevated above all angels and given a name above all others
3.michael was/is an angel
4.michael was/is elevated above all other angels(define archangel)
5.michael was a prince whom was/is to come
6.jesus was a prince that was/is to come
7.jesus was prophesied to strike satan on the head
8.revelations shows michael casting satan out after a battle
9.god-given name michael means like god
10.scriptures depict jesus as being like god
ect.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
T3,

One thing to think about here is there's a 2000 year tradition of regarding Jesus as God, and this contradicts the Michael theory. Why not go with the traditional view? ;)
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
No*s said:
One thing to think about here is there's a 2000 year tradition of regarding Jesus as God, and this contradicts the Michael theory. Why not go with the traditional view? ;)
it's actually only about 1700 years old, 'tradition of men' is spoken against many times in the bible, and because it was once 'tradition' to kill...inquisition.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
HelpMe said:
it's actually only about 1700 years old, 'tradition of men' is spoken against many times in the bible, and because it was once 'tradition' to kill...inquisition.

I'm starting a thread on this, so I'm not going to debate it here. I just need to point out that I can date it firmly to 107, making it 1900 years old. I have clear statements in the Didache that require it to make any sense, making it 2000 years old. It can be seen rather easily in the Bible, also pointing towards 2000 years old. As I said, though, I'm starting a thread on this very issue.

On the subject of Jesus being an angel: How many early Christian documents can you cite on this issue? I can think of one group: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History contains about two sentances on the Ebionites, but I can quickly counter-balance it with Against Heresies, which paints a fairly interesting picture of how groups like that arose. There may be more on the subject, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find another person/group that says Jesus is an angel. Hebrews 1 blatantly contradicts it by saying that the Son is greater than the angels, and there's a fairly good chance the Ebionites are the group the author of Hebrews was writing against. Even Arius did not teach the Son was an angel.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
1-you can't date it to 107, honestly.

2-so what?(arius)

3-alot of christians say jesus was/is the 'angel of the lord', also read Ga4:14.
 

t3gah

Well-Known Member
Angel means messenger. Every person of God was a messenger.

According to all that you posted almost every angel (messenger) must be Jesus because Jesus was a messenger.

The angel that disjoints Jacob's knee never said his name. (Genesis 32:25) Was this Jesus?

The angel that stood in the way of Balaam that was on a donkey never mentioned his name either. (Numbers 22:23- ) Was that Jesus too?

What of the two men/messengers that were with Lot? (Genesis 19:1) Was that Gabriel and Michael (Jesus)?

The angel that escorts the Israelites in the desert, is that Michael/Jesus too? (Exodus 23:20-23)

What of Joshua 5:14? Or Judges 13:17,18? Revelation 19:10? Acts 10:3-7?

The burning bush is Jesus also? Unbelievable!
 

t3gah

Well-Known Member
lilithu said:
That's what I'm thinking too. I don't want to get into an argument about trinity, but it seems to me that the scriptures could just as easily be interpreted in this way. To say that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God" does not prove that the Word (ie - Jesus) is God. It could merely suggest that out of all created beings, the Word was there first. Since Michael is the first among angels, it doesn't seem like that big a leap to equate them.

(I have no stake in the truth of any of these claims. I'm just interested in the different possible meanings that can be interpreted from scripture.)
There's a scripture in the Old Testament that states the Moses is God to Aaron. God states this to Moses. The Word was God. Sounds similar. Not the real God but someone acting like God.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
HelpMe said:
1-you can't date it to 107, honestly.

Sure I can. I did in my thread I just put up in the forum for same faith debates. St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. He was martyred in the year 107. He taught that Jesus was God, and he taught it very bluntly. Unless you can dispute the date Ignatius composed that document, I not only can, but just did :).

HelpMe said:
2-so what?(arius)

Arius is the most noteworthy individual who denied the Deity of Christ. His support would be the most potent, but he taught Jesus was greater than an angel, and thus, cannot be used as support.

HelpMe said:
3-alot of christians say jesus was/is the 'angel of the lord', also read Ga4:14.

First, this isn't some extra-biblical group or writing to corroborate your interpretations to prove your theology existed in the Early Church. I asked you to prove your theology is compatible with how they saw it then. Anyone can prove virtually anything from Scripture. It's done all the time.

Second, it doesn't. Paul said that they received him "as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." It's a rhetorical technique. He compliments them greatly by saying they'd received them as "an angel of God," and then he one ups it with by saying they received him "as Christ Jesus." It's so blatant, that for instance, when St. Chrysostom preached in that area, he just passed over it. Chrysostom, being the Trinitarian that he was, would always stop and deal with the spots that non-Trinitarians would argue from. He was also formally trained in Greek, spoke Hellenistic Greek even as we speak English. If your argument was very strong, I'd think that he would stop there, since that is exactly how he tends to deal with situations like that.
 
Top