Jesus and Michael - One and the same?

[HelpMe]

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


The burning bush is Jesus also? Unbelievable!

1-honestly, that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard regarding this debate. clarify what scripture you drew that from.

he was obviously a man, does that mean every man is jesus to you?to be a man/angel does not make you every man/angel.

2-i don't know where you got that from either.acts7:35(or was it 31)?

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 .

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.

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.

1-i already suggested you learn more about the broad use of words translated as 'god' in english earlier in this thread.see#2.

2-i base my beliefs on the bible over any early church father, trinitarian or otherwise.

3-it's been done ever since the trinity was added to your religion hundreds of years after 'christ'.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III Chapter 18 Paragraph 7 (about 150 AD):

says nothing of equality between yeshua elohim and his father.

St. Ignatius Ephesians 7.2 (107 AD)

says nothing of equality between yeshua elohim and his father.merely calls yeshua 'lord'(master).you're managing to base beliefs on deciples of men from biblical times, unimpressive.

your other quotes do no more, as i said research what the words(elohim/theos/kurios/ect.) meant. they are far from 'almighty'.

 

[lilithu]

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.

This argument is only valid if you hold church history/tradition as a source of spiritual authority - being able to decide what is true and not true. I understand that as an Orthodox christian this is true for you - the Church taken as a whole does not make mistakes - but Protestants would find this argument uncompelling.

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.

Might not this be a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative difference? That is, couldn't it be that Jesus had made himself greater than the angels by his actions rather than him being of some greater type of essence? Or couldn't it just mean that being an archangel, Jesus/Michael was greater than all the rest?

 

[Scott1]

This argument is only valid if you hold church history/tradition as a source of spiritual authority - being able to decide what is true and not true. I understand that as an Orthodox christian this is true for you - the Church taken as a whole does not make mistakes - but Protestants would find this argument uncompelling.

Until someone can show us evidence that the Bible fell from heaven in it's current form/cannon I will continue to hold Sacred Tradition as authority..... after all, the Bible IS a product of the early church tradition.

Peace,
Scott

** edit **
Only No*s will get this one:
Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou .... I hope I got it right!

 

[lilithu]

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.

So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus was God? Only the Word, which is someone acting like God? I'm not arguing with you - as I said, I have no stake in what any of you believe - just trying to understand where y'all are coming from.

Your argument about the Word being someone acting like God reminds me of logos christology - the idea that Christ is the active principle of God. God in action, not necessarily the same thing as God, certainly lesser. But this is not too far off from my working hypothesis that angels are emanations of God (as I tried to elaborate in the angels and demons thread). So I have yet to see anything to convince me that Jesus and Michael couldn't be one and the same. Not saying that they are; only that they could be.

t3gah, you say that you used to be a Jehovah's Witness and that they teach that Jesus is Michael. What was the evidence that they used to support this claim? Is it only that one verse in Thessalonians?

 

[HelpMe]

Only No*s will get this one:
Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou

the 'lord' of me and the 'god' of me.(thomas)


until someone can show me tradition overriding scripture, or scripture suggesting scripture is not inspired, i will continue to hold scripture above sinful men.

 

[lilithu]

thanks helpme. the info you provided is awesome. it says that I can't frubal you right now but I won't forget!

 

[t3gah]

So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus was God? Only the Word, which is someone acting like God? I'm not arguing with you - as I said, I have no stake in what any of you believe - just trying to understand where y'all are coming from.

Your argument about the Word being someone acting like God reminds me of logos christology - the idea that Christ is the active principle of God. God in action, not necessarily the same thing as God, certainly lesser.

Exodus 4:16 He will be your spokesman to the people; and it will happen, that he will be to you a mouth, and you will be to him as God. (World English Bible)
​

God is speaking to Moses in the scripture above. I have another thread that suggests that the writer of the five books of the Torah is not Moses but Joshua.

So if God says to Moses, through the writer of this scriptures eyes, that "you will be to him as God", the theory holds true that Moses is acting like a God but not God himself. Which supports the theory you mentioned "that Christ is the active principle of God".

t3gah, you say that you used to be a Jehovah's Witness and that they teach that Jesus is Michael. What was the evidence that they used to support this claim? Is it only that one verse in Thessalonians?

*** Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2. pages 393-394 ***

Michael

[I forgot. Copyrighted information from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is not allowed to be posted on the Internet or through email. So the document that was here has been deleted.]

***************************************************************

It's uncanny that they anointed remnant, as they call themselves, has nearly identical thoughts of what HelpMe posted from those sources. Which is why I have my "Watchtower Bible & Tract Society" thread. HelpMe has just proved that they are mortal men, the Governing Body. They secretly looked at the documents posted elsewhere and said that they, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, figured it out on their own. The Governing Body did decide to use someone elses translation of the Greek scriptures. Sounds like a pattern, no? Hrm.... :sarcastic

 

[HelpMe]

the question mark in the translation of the name michael is assumed.

i came to this conclusion without the use of wtbs study guide / aid and by using trinitarian translations(such as are availible at www.studylight.org / http://www.scripture4all.org/), so i would appreciate if nobody suggests i did.

thanks helpme. the info you provided is awesome. it says that I can't frubal you right now but I won't forget!

no problem, even if you're not 'christian' i appreciate your approaching texts with an open mind to interpretation.

 

[t3gah]

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.

Are you using the Hebrew calendar and comparing the events to the Gregorian calendar to extrapolate the years you are quoting?

 

[LittleNipper]

Jesus says he always existed. Angels are created beings. Michael is a specific angel. Michael did and does act on GOD's behalf.

Isaiah 9:6

For us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Might GOD, Everlasting FATHER, Prince of Peace.

I do not see angelic messenger in the discription anywhere. Must be a man made false doctrine.

 

[lilithu]

Until someone can show us evidence that the Bible fell from heaven in it's current form/cannon I will continue to hold Sacred Tradition as authority..... after all, the Bible IS a product of the early church tradition.

Hi Scott, namaste.

I think it's perfectly valid to hold church tradition as authority, as the Orthodox and Catholics do. Thus, I understand and accept that No*s' argument is compelling for an Orthodox or Catholic christian. But my point is that not all Christians share this view, and in a discussion/debate between christians of different stripes, one can't expect a Protestant to accept that argument with the same authority. -lilith

 

[Scott1]

But my point is that not all Christians share this view, and in a discussion/debate between christians of different stripes, one can't expect a Protestant to accept that argument with the same authority. -lilith

Very true, my friend..... but that does not make the argument any less valid.

As you can read in HelpMe's post....

until someone can show me tradition overriding scripture, or scripture suggesting scripture is not inspired, i will continue to hold scripture above sinful men.

I just can't help but read this and groan..... these "sinful men" created the canon of Scripture that he reads and uses as "proof" of his argument. Circular to the max! I just don't know why it's not so obvious to everyone.

Oh well. Nice chatting with you lilithu.
Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

Scott,

we've been around this mulberry bush before.

The non-catholic Christians, thank you for you time and effort and remind you that God could have as easily used gnostics or even invisible pagan clerics wearing pink robes if he so desired. He might have stooped so low as to use me were I around back then! After all, he has used an *** before!

 

[Scott1]

we've been around this mulberry bush before.

Great...now I'm going to be humming that song for a week.

The non-catholic Christians, thank you for you time and effort and remind you that God could have as easily used gnostics or even invisible pagan clerics wearing pink robes if he so desired.

My friend.... your humorous suggested possiblities aside.... I understand that this is hard to understand.... but I am shocked to hear you suggest this.

If Mary had not said "yes".... God would have just chosen another.....

If the Apostles said no to Jesus... he would have just chosen others....

If the people refused to have him crucified, God would have just thought something else up....

If the Apostles did not spread the Good News of the Risen Lord, He would have just found others....

Jesus was not really that special.....God could have easily used another to save us.

See what I'm getting at....? Don't doubt the will of God in this matter my friend.... the Bible did not happen by some "divine accident"... it was formed by holy men of a holy faith.... a faith that remains to this day.

Peace,
Scott

 

[No*s]

Are you using the Hebrew calendar and comparing the events to the Gregorian calendar to extrapolate the years you are quoting?

I'm using the Gregorian calendar, our standard calander. It would be overwhelmingly confusing otherwise.

However, we always have access to Gregorian, Hebrew, Julian, and whatever the calander that the Julian modified was for sheer calander chaos .

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Scott...

My point was NOT that God was not in control, but in FULL control. He chose and sanctified whom he chose. But he did not do this to create another "royal lineage" as he did with the Jews. He worked through IMPERFECT men to show his strength and to Glorify himself in spite of his messengers.

 

[No*s]

This argument is only valid if you hold church history/tradition as a source of spiritual authority - being able to decide what is true and not true. I understand that as an Orthodox christian this is true for you - the Church taken as a whole does not make mistakes - but Protestants would find this argument uncompelling.

This is quite true, though we are always quick to point out where the Bible comes from .

What lends the argument weight, though, is the way the Early Church portrayed its origins. If its portrayel of Apostolic Succession is accurate (and the way they work it from I Clement (I take the 70 date over the 90) all the way on, it would appear to have historical truth behind it. If this is so, then the consensus and teachers I quote are quite potent. At the very least, they do clearly demonstrate that Trinitarian thought was present in the first and second centuries, which is what Helpme had asked me to demonstrate.

Might not this be a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative difference? That is, couldn't it be that Jesus had made himself greater than the angels by his actions rather than him being of some greater type of essence? Or couldn't it just mean that being an archangel, Jesus/Michael was greater than all the rest?

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.

 

[No*s]

** edit **
Only No*s will get this one:
Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou .... I hope I got it right!

Oh, you got it quite right. I, personally, think Thomas was being very blunt .

 

[No*s]

1-i already suggested you learn more about the broad use of words translated as 'god' in english earlier in this thread.see#2.

I read it it. I don't see how it's applicable in the theological mindset of the quotes. Could you enlighten me? Ignatius, for instance, didn't call Jesus "a God," but "the God" and said that he, alone, was the only one who ever was both God and man. It wouls seem to indicate something a bit higher than what you're granting.

2-i base my beliefs on the bible over any early church father, trinitarian or otherwise.

Of course...so does every other modern teacher it seems. However, if you believe that there is right and wrong doctrine, which you clearly do, then you would make your case a lot stronger if you did some research there. After all, if they're so wrong in their interpretation of Scripture...what makes you think you have it right even over the group of people who decided the Bible?

3-it's been done ever since the trinity was added to your religion hundreds of years after 'christ'.

You will, for the sake of argument, document when it was added with primary sources won't you? If you can't, then I'm perfectly sound in saying that I reject that view of history.

says nothing of equality between yeshua elohim and his father.
says nothing of equality between yeshua elohim and his father.merely calls yeshua 'lord'(master).you're managing to base beliefs on deciples of men from biblical times, unimpressive.

If you're looking for the word "elohim," you may as well go talk to a Copt, because their tradition used (maybe still does) Aramaic for a long time. You won't find "elohim" in Greek, and the quotes I gave expressed the Deity of Christ about as plainly as possible. If they can't convince you, then I certainly can't, because I won't find anything you won't simply wave aside.

your other quotes do no more, as i said research what the words(elohim/theos/kurios/ect.) meant. they are far from 'almighty'.

Of course, but rather than explaining how and why they're used in the context, you've waved them aside. There weren't any arguments in this post. Just declarations. I declare, then, that they referred to the Almighty in this context. Now we're on equal footing.

 

[HelpMe]

^i'm not just going to repeat myself until you leave the argument.call upon early church fathers all you want, i am too content to pretend to care.

I just can't help but read this and groan..... these "sinful men" created the canon of Scripture that he reads and uses as "proof" of his argument. Circular to the max!

actually i believe the almighty created(inspired) the canon of scripture, as i've said before. not circular at all, grin all you want. i like how you failed to even try to give me what i requested.