Jesus and Michael - One and the same?

[lilithu]

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]

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.

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.

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).

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.)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 enough heresies for the day.

 

[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)

there are a great many food groups. one has to be selective and choose wisely. but, it's not healthy to always go for the same food group because one could become biased. also since there are many grocery stores with similar food such as this cooked with the same frequency and regularity, my "happy meal" is ever so nourishing these days as opposed to KH days. but I should state that all food of this kind regardless of the source comes at the proper time when you are hungry.

 

[t3gah]

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 enough heresies for the day.

The Apocrypha. Archangel is one. Or is it One For All and All For One in the Apocrypha?

 

[may]

Of all the agents used by Jehovah to communicate His will, the foremost is the Word, the Logos, who became Jesus Christ.

THE​

GREAT PRINCE GOES INTO ACTION


​

Daniel 12:1 reads: "During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people." This verse foretells these two distinct things regarding Michael: one, that he "is standing," suggesting a state of affairs that extends over a period of time; two, that he "will stand up," suggesting an event during that period of time. First, we want to know the period when Michael is "standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people." Recall that Michael is a name given to Jesus in his role as a heavenly Ruler. The reference to his "standing" reminds us of the way that this term is used elsewhere in the book of Daniel. It often refers to the action of a king, such as his taking up royal power.—Daniel 11:2-4, 7, 20, 21.​

It is evident that the angel was here pointing to a period of time specified elsewhere in Bible prophecy. Jesus called it his "presence" (Greek, pa·rou·si´a), when he would rule as King in heaven. (Matthew 24:37-39) This time period is also called "the last days" and "the time of the end." (2 Timothy 3:1; Daniel 12:4, 9) Ever since that period began in 1914, Michael has been standing as King in heaven.—Compare Isaiah 11:10; Revelation 12:7-9.​

When, though, does Michael "stand up"? When he rises up to take special action. This, Jesus will do in the future. Revelation 19:11-16 prophetically describes Jesus as the mighty Messianic King riding at the head of an angelic army and bringing destruction upon enemies of God. Daniel 12:1 continues: "And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." As Jehovah’s Chief Executioner, Christ will bring an end to the entire wicked system of things during the foretold "great tribulation."—Matthew 24:21; Jeremiah 25:33; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Revelation 7:14; 16:14, 16.

l​

 

[kassi]

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.

His elevation above the angels is true. That is- Mans elavation.

Hebrew 2:6 But as one testified in a certain place, saying:
What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you take care of him?
You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, and set him (man) over the works of your hands.
You have put all things in subjection under his feet.
Now read: Hebrew 1:13 But to which of the angels has he ever said: Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies Your footstool?
Then read: Hebrew 2:5 For he has not put the world to come of which we speak, in subjection to angels.

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."

Hebrew 1:4 Having become so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance
obtained a more excellent Name than they.

The Inheritance was promised to Abraham and his Seed. Not to angels.

Hebrew 2:14-17 Inasmuch as the chrildren have partaken of flesh and blood, He himself likewise shared in the same. That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
For indeed he does not give aid to angels but he does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
Therefor in all things he had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitation for the sins of the people.

 

[may]

As it is Jehovah’s will and arrangement for Jesus to resurrect the dead. (John 6:38-40) It is God’s trumpet that sounds the call for the dead to come back to life, just as God instructed that trumpets be used for an assembly of his people in ancient times. (Numbers 10:1-10) Jesus issues "a commanding call" to the dead to come forth, just as he did on occasion while on earth. (John 11:43) But now he calls, not with a man’s voice as he did then, but with all the power of "an archangel’s voice" (en pho·ne´ arkh·ag·ge´lou). However, only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice! And no one but Jesus has been given the authority to resurrect the dead. So this prophecy gives additional strong reason for identifying Jesus with the archangel, Michael.

 

[t3gah]

Ok, so far everyone is establishing that Jesus is Michael through scripture verifications. My question still stands about the identity of the one who will come back.

Jesus tells his apostles when he's ascending to heaven that he, Jesus, will return in the same way. He doesn't say he'll be back as his alter persona. Which then falls back to my other problem. Why didn't God just tell Joseph and Mary that they should call their son, Michael & Immanuel instead of Jesus & Immanuel? If the scriptures are inspired of God, why are they so convoluted to the point of thousands of years of confusion? And the most impprtant question on people's minds is this:

Will Jesus be himself or will he be Michael when he returns?
​

 

[No*s]

Ok, so far everyone is establishing that Jesus is Michael through scripture verifications.

Actually, I not everyone affirms that. Just some of us didn't want to box shadows anymore, and the person that made the most reasonable discussion partner understood my points, so we called it quits.

EDIT:

I would also add that NetDoc and Scott were not pacified by the counter-arguments.

 

[HelpMe]

^*me?

 

[No*s]

^*me?

If that is asking if my post was directed at you, not directly, no. Though, I didn't exclude you from my thought process either. It wasn't a personal post. I was simply describing how I felt and why I stopped posting much. I'm sure the other Trinitarians felt the same way.

 

[oracle]

Men have been symbolized as angels in the bible, I think particularly the "sons of God". I've seen some funny ideas on this one, however the "Sons of God" is a distinction from the "sons of men", the sons of men being those who alienate themselves from God and conform to their physical, materialistic, and animalistic manifestation.

Jesus didn't preach that he was better than anyone, but practiced humility. I would say that no one has status in the kingdom of heaven, but we are all one and the same. No one is greater or lesser at some point.

I think it's possible Michael might symbolize something other than an angel. I don't take Satan for being a literal angel, but most of these angels are symbols. Now in an old orthodox Jewish View, these are symbols.

Jesus used a lot of parables and symbology, and if you think He's going to literally come back on a cloud, to believe it literally contradicts the statement he made that he will come as a theif.

I would also assume that the angels in the book of revelations symbolize people in the end times, the angels that gather weeds and bundle them up are people.

The dead in Christ will rise first,

Anyways, the "rapture" itself is symbology. You are not going to hear a trumpet, your not going to see people vanish, and your not gonna see a bunch of walking zombies. It's symbology and it symbolizes spiritual awakening, that those who are spiritually dead or asleep will rise from their "graves".

To believe that such things are literal in the book of Revelations is a big mistake.

 

[hoomer]

whoa lil..so many posts to read...when I get a chance......

1st I was told by my GF that soem traditons aready see Michael as christ.....I'll aSK HER FOR CONFIRmation though......

Lets just say somethings...and apologize if I am repeating anyone here already.....

There are actualy 10 Arch angels....lil.....the 4 you mention are the 4 "main ones"........and are assciated with the 4 directins...and 4 elements and YHVH

air...uriel.....east
fire...michael....south
water....Gbriel.....west
earth....Raphael....north

other arch anges incude.... satchiel..metatron.....sandelphon etc..though of course there's a centuries long argument about this...

the 4 directions/elements can be seen in christianity(main stream) in the form of YHVH......and in the bibical text where we see a tree growing in eden surrounded by 4 rivers.....which gives us the 7 directions......&7 days of creation...7 directions...etc etc ..7 is an important number)of up down, before, behind, left , right and withinor encircing...... theres and arch angel for each directin...blah blah...ANYWAY....

the number 7 can also be seen in the fact circumcion occurs on the 8th day (1 more than 7,..making it 1 more than,...source "the sefer yetzirah" by aryeh kaplan) which is followed by the catholic tradition of baptism on the 8th day too....catholics are kinda the 1st messianic jews....lol....


Michael....who's name means "Like God"...embodies "uprightness" and supporting.........michae is a warrior and is ften seen in armout slaying a dragon...

Now if we look at qabbalah....we see the 6th emanation...is that of the SUN....the sun of the emanation (6th) caled tiffereth

Tiphareth: The sixth emanation on the Tree of Life.It is the sphere of
beauty, harmonizing the forces of mercy(Chesed) and Judgement
(Geburah), higher on the Tree. Occultists identify Tiphareth
as the sphere of spiritual REBIRTH, and ascribe to it the
Solar Deities such as RA,APOLLO, and MITHRA as well as OSIRIS
and JESUS CHRIST. The TAROT card TEMPERANCE identifies the
direct mystical ascent to Tipareth from Malkuth(the physical).
http://www.textfiles.com/occult/cabala1.occ

So we see Michael and CHrist share a qabbalistic placement......as mediatiors...between spirt and form....as the 6th is caled b\eauty as is is the beaituf baancing harmony on the tree...at the heart of all things.....just as the physica sun is at the heart of our solar system.....yes the ancients knew about a helio centric reality......

Christ came to bring the sword....to right wrongs and reform....and re balance.....

on another note....

if we follow the Rosicrucian ideas...we see Christ wil re appear as a woman...in the what rosicrucians call the 3rd flood.... (the 1st was noah's...the 2nd is christ..and the 3rd wi be the holy spirit....)

...of course this is related to the trinity father mother chid...or creator destroyer saviour...





This formula is the principal and most characteristic formula of Osiris, of the Redemption of Mankind. "I" is Isis, Nature, ruined by "A", Apophis the Destroyer, and restored to life by the Redeemer Osiris.

There is a quite different formula in which I is the father, O the Mother, A the child --- and yet another, in which I.A.O. are all fathers of different kinds balanced by H.H.H., 3 Mothers, to complete the Universe. In a third, the true formula of the Beast 666, I and O are the opposites which form the field for the operation of A. But this is a higher matter unsuited for this elementary handbook. See, however, Liber Samekh, Point II, Section J.​

The same idea is expressed by the Rosicrucian formula of the Trinity:




"Ex Deo nascimur. In Jesu Morimur Per Spiritum Sanctum reviviscimus." (something like : in God we are born, in christ we die and in the hoy spirit we are reborn"..I frget the exact translation)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/chap5.htm


"The Height of Knowedge is to know nothing" ----CRC:bonk: