JW's Jesus is Archangel Michael?

[savagewind]

I have seen where Jesus came from. He is not God and he was not an angel in Heaven.

Anyway......who cares? What difference does it make? Believing one way or the other won't change what they will do or what you will do. There are other more important things to care about which would change what you would do. But nobody cares and I am beginning to believe I am not real.

 

[Wharton]

But she and her father are different souls.

God The Father doesn't have a soul. The soul is the marker of your holiness. He doesn't need one.

 

[savagewind]

God The Father doesn't have a soul. The soul is the marker of your holiness. He doesn't need one.

Wow! That is really interesting. I can't see it. What does it mean?

Jesus has a soul. Correct?

 

[savagewind]

Are you going by this definition for God the Father has not soul? 1. : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.

 

[Wharton]

Show me this half man half God in scripture please.

Is Jesus not called Son of Man and Son of the Living God?

 

[Wharton]

Wow! That is really interesting. I can't see it. What does it mean?

Jesus has a soul. Correct?

God the father doesn't need a soul as he is all holy and needs no marker. Jesus has a soul due to his human nature. His marker/soul was perfect.

 

[savagewind]

Show me this half man half God in scripture please.

He is not half and half. God created people in God's image. Jesus is that image. He is 100% the image of God. Not half.

 

[savagewind]

God the father doesn't need a soul as he is all holy and needs no marker. Jesus has a soul due to his human nature. His marker/soul was perfect.

Marker - something that serves to identify something/someone. Jesus says God is love. I think maybe love is The Father's marker. Why not?

 

[jeager106]

Is Jesus not called Son of Man and Son of the Living God?

^^^^That makes Him half man, half................what? Scripture to support claim please
or is this your interpretation?
Let me be clear that your interpretation is perfectly normal and human.
The written word can be so subjective.
Not all will see the same Truth in the same words.
I remember at University we all were required to have the same N.I.V. Study Bible
and were required to read selected chapters and write essays.
Tons of essays. ( I started college at age 49 )
We often read each others essays to correct any errors in grammar but I suspect
to also see that everyone saw some things quite differently.
After reading some essays of other students I wondered if they wrote on the same subject
that I did. Such it is with subjective perception.

 

[Wharton]

^^^^That makes Him half man, half................what? Scripture to support claim please
or is this your interpretation?
Let me be clear that your interpretation is perfectly normal and human.
The written word can be so subjective.
Not all will see the same Truth in the same words.
I remember at University we all were required to have the same N.I.V. Study Bible
and were required to read selected chapters and write essays.
Tons of essays. ( I started college at age 49 )
We often read each others essays to correct any errors in grammar but I suspect
to also see that everyone saw some things quite differently.
After reading some essays of other students I wondered if they wrote on the same subject
that I did. Such it is with subjective perception.

It makes him fully human and fully God

 

[Wharton]

Marker - something that serves to identify something/someone. Jesus says God is love. I think maybe love is The Father's marker. Why not?

Faith and hope don't exist in heaven. Only love does.

 

[JayJayDee]

Now, Literally, all authority was given... the tense used is being that which occurred at a given point of time. And that time as Philippians also points out, was at the Resurrection. I'll be cutting and pasting the Bible quotes to save some time btw.
"And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
-Philippians 2:8-11

This is another classic example of reading without comprehension. This is telling us that Jesus (whom you trinitarians classify as the Amighty in human form) needed to be "obedient".....to whom? Why would one part of God need to be obedient to another equal part of himself?

Then God "exalted" him to the "highest place"......what "highest place" does God not already occupy? (Psalm 83:18 KJV)

God "gave him a name that is above every name"....how does one have a name that is higher than God's? What name could one part of an equal godhead give to another equal part that is higher? Seriously...can you not read what the scripture says?

Jesus has a name before which "every knee should bow in heaven, on earth" and even "under the earth".
So all creation and even the dead in their graves will bow before Jesus.....true? They will acknowledge that "Jesus is Lord" (not God).....but whose glory is promoted by this whole exercise? All this takes place to glorify the Father...not the son.

Do you see the picture emerging? Will you continue blindly quoting scripture without understanding what it says in its context? Your teachers are making walk a very dodgy path.

Paul’s uses the same tense in the Greek of Philippians 2:8. The exaltation came, the authority was given, as at the moment of the Resurrection, and as the crown of His obedience unto death.
So, he had the authority to rebuke Satan Before the resurrection, Before He was given "all authority." So the argument you presented, I'm sorry, is mute. And the Fact still stands. For Jesus did rebuke satan and Michael could not. Hence two different, separate beings.

Again a complicated, round the world explanation for something that doesn't need it. Just read the scripture.
Jesus received full authority from his Father as Messiah and rebuking satan was something he had authority as Messiah and son of God to do. As Michael, he did not have that authority at that time so he left the rebuking to his God. Why is that so hard to understand.

Also, it is written "prince of Persia," not "Chief Prince," correct? So Michael is clearly above the prince of Persia. But it is written that Michael is "one of the Chief Princes" meaning that there are other "Chief Princes" like him, not just a prince like in Persia.

Yes it would seem that other Angels have positions of authority, such as Seraphs and Cherubs, but perhaps not as much as Michael.
Edit: the meaning of the word "archangel" means "Chief of the Angels". There is only one Archangel mentioned in the Bible. He is Commander of all the Angels.

In the account in Daniel 10, an angel was delayed from coming to Daniel for three weeks until Michael sorted that demon prince out. But the closing words of Daniel 10 still put Michael as the only one standing for Daniel's people.

Daniel 10:21....."nevertheless, I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. There is no one standing with me against them except Mikha’el your prince" (CJB) The angel told Daniel that "Michael" is "your prince". In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called the "Prince of Peace"....a Prince is the son of a King.

Now whether there are demonic Chief Princes and/or Heavenly ones, Michael would still be among equals in rank or title. Meaning again, he is not unique, whereas Jesus is said over and over to be unique and not one among ANY equals right? That argument still seems to stand as well.

Not to me. The Bible is the sum of ALL its parts, not fragments carved up to prove false doctrines.

There is not one single reference to Jesus as Almighty God in the whole Bible. Whether he is Michael or not really doesn't matter in the big picture because the main truth is that Jesus was not God incarnate. This is what the sum of ALL scripture teaches.

You keep glossing over the scriptures presented to you to prove otherwise. That is your choice.

As long as you continue to put another god in the place of Jehovah, you will never be invited into his kingdom. This breaks the very first Commandment that God gave to his people. When Jesus comes as judge, he will not allow "workers of lawlessness" into the kingdom. Since the majority of "Christians" hang onto this blasphemous teaching, it explains why "few" are on the road to life. (Matt 7:13, 13, 21-23)

 

[JFish123]

Faith and hope don't exist in heaven. Only love does.

Absutely right! In Heaven, we won't need any Hope as we'll already be there. And we won't need Faith anymore as we'll be able to See it

 

[JFish123]

This is another classic example of reading without comprehension. This is telling us that Jesus (whom you trinitarians classify as the Amighty in human form) needed to be "obedient".....to whom? Why would one part of God need to be obedient to another equal part of himself?

Then God "exalted" him to the "highest place"......what "highest place" does God not already occupy? (Psalm 83:18 KJV)

God "gave him a name that is above every name"....how does one have a name that is higher than God's? What name could one part of an equal godhead give to another equal part that is higher? Seriously...can you not read what the scripture says?

Jesus has a name before which "every knee should bow in heaven, on earth" and even "under the earth".
So all creation and even the dead in their graves will bow before Jesus.....true? They will acknowledge that "Jesus is Lord" (not God).....but whose glory is promoted by this whole exercise? All this takes place to glorify the Father...not the son.

Do you see the picture emerging? Will you continue blindly quoting scripture without understanding what it says in its context? Your teachers are making walk a very dodgy path.


Again a complicated, round the world explanation for something that doesn't need it. Just read the scripture.
Jesus received full authority from his Father as Messiah and rebuking satan was something he had authority as Messiah and son of God to do. As Michael, he did not have that authority at that time so he left the rebuking to his God. Why is that so hard to understand.



Yes it would seem that other Angels have positions of authority, such as Seraphs and Cherubs, but perhaps not as much as Michael.
Edit: the meaning of the word "archangel" means "Chief of the Angels". There is only one Archangel mentioned in the Bible. He is Commander of all the Angels.

In the account in Daniel 10, an angel was delayed from coming to Daniel for three weeks until Michael sorted that demon prince out. But the closing words of Daniel 10 still put Michael as the only one standing for Daniel's people.

Daniel 10:21....."nevertheless, I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. There is no one standing with me against them except Mikha’el your prince" (CJB) The angel told Daniel that "Michael" is "your prince". In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called the "Prince of Peace"....a Prince is the son of a King.



Not to me. The Bible is the sum of ALL its parts, not fragments carved up to prove false doctrines.

There is not one single reference to Jesus as Almighty God in the whole Bible. Whether he is Michael or not really doesn't matter in the big picture because the main truth is that Jesus was not God incarnate. This is what the sum of ALL scripture teaches.

You keep glossing over the scriptures presented to you to prove otherwise. That is your choice.

As long as you continue to put another god in the place of Jehovah, you will never be invited into his kingdom. This breaks the very first Commandment that God gave to his people. When Jesus comes as judge, he will not allow "workers of lawlessness" into the kingdom. Since the majority of "Christians" hang onto this blasphemous teaching, it explains why "few" are on the road to life. (Matt 7:13, 13, 21-23)

You seem to enjoy bringing up subjects which I would love to debate you on, but which are not the topic of this thread so as to the contents you posted about the topic at hand...

So, does as you say, being the messiah or Son of God automatically mean He has Full Authority? Let's see what the scriptures tell us as to when Jesus was given such authority. While either He had the authority already BEING the messiah and Son of God, or that He was GIVEN the authority at a certain time WHILE BEING the messiah and Son of God...

AFTER His resurrection, and just before Jesus returned to heaven, He told the disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…” (Matthew 28:18) Then, in Ephesians 1:20-23 we are told that when God raised Christ from the dead, He “seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over every thing for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills everything in every way.” If Jesus is presently head over the church, he is also head over all authority, power and dominion.

And that happened AFTER his resurrection, when He returned to heaven to receive the glory He once had with the Father. This is confirmed in 1 Peter 3:22, where Jesus Christ’s resurrection is said to save believers, and that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.” Jesus had to relinquish the glory and power He had in heaven before His incarnation, and He told His disciples that they were keen in seeing Him with the glory He once had. That is in His prayer just before the crucifixion, in John 17: “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Jesus had laid down His heavenly glory and authority in order to become the suffering servant, and AFTER His resurrection, He was given all authority in heaven and on earth.”

So no, Jesus didn't have the Full authority just because He was the Messiah or the Son of God, as scripture dictates that He received it after the Resurrection. So again, Jesus (before he had full authority) rebuked satan, but Michael (an archangel who also didn't have full authority) could not. Not the same I'm afraid my friend.

And Michael is called a Prince, yes He is. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace, yes. Does that make them the same person? If you read in a novel that the main character walked by a Policeman and a chapter later, he walked by another policeman, would you automatically assume they were the same person because they were both cops? Especially if one was a lieutenant and the other a captain? Of course not. Just sharing a title doesn't mean your the same as someone else right? And as for Jesus, He is also the King of Kings which is far above a mere chief prince, who is among equals.

 

[Wharton]

This is another classic example of reading without comprehension. This is telling us that Jesus (whom you trinitarians classify as the Amighty in human form) needed to be "obedient".....to whom? Why would one part of God need to be obedient to another equal part of himself?

Actually, it's a classic example of not knowing the purpose of Jesus. Which you don't. Remember this. What is not incarnated, is not redeemed/ransomed. All aspects of humanity are exhibited by Jesus in the NT. He's afraid, angry, obedient to his parents and God, he's said to be crazy, he's hungry, thirsty, he weeps, he feels pain, etc.

 

[Wharton]

You seem to enjoy bringing up subjects which I would love to debate you on, but which are not the topic of this thread so as to the contents you posted about the topic at hand...

So, does as you say, being the messiah or Son of God automatically mean He has Full Authority? Let's see what the scriptures tell us as to when Jesus was given such authority. While either He had the authority already BEING the messiah and Son of God, or that He was GIVEN the authority at a certain time WHILE BEING the messiah and Son of God...

AFTER His resurrection, and just before Jesus returned to heaven, He told the disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…” (Matthew 28:18) Then, in Ephesians 1:20-23 we are told that when God raised Christ from the dead, He “seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over every thing for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills everything in every way.” If Jesus is presently head over the church, he is also head over all authority, power and dominion.

And that happened AFTER his resurrection, when He returned to heaven to receive the glory He once had with the Father. This is confirmed in 1 Peter 3:22, where Jesus Christ’s resurrection is said to save believers, and that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.” Jesus had to relinquish the glory and power He had in heaven before His incarnation, and He told His disciples that they were keen in seeing Him with the glory He once had. That is in His prayer just before the crucifixion, in John 17: “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Jesus had laid down His heavenly glory and authority in order to become the suffering servant, and AFTER His resurrection, He was given all authority in heaven and on earth.”

So no, Jesus didn't have the Full authority just because He was the Messiah or the Son of God, as scripture dictates that He received it after the Resurrection. So again, Jesus (before he had full authority) rebuked satan, but Michael (an archangel who also didn't have full authority) could not. Not the same I'm afraid my friend.

And Michael is called a Prince, yes He is. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace, yes. Does that make them the same person? If you read in a novel that the main character walked by a Policeman and a chapter later, he walked by another policeman, would you automatically assume they were the same person because they were both cops? Especially if one was a lieutenant and the other a captain? Of course not. Just sharing a title doesn't mean your the same as someone else right? And as for Jesus, He is also the King of Kings which is far above a mere chief prince, who is among equals.

And finally, your position cannot be true because it means that the nature of angel ceased to exist and that it was somehow changed into the man Jesus. But an angel and a man are completely different things. Identity is tied to the nature of the thing so if the nature ceases to be, then the identity also ceases. Therefore, it would mean that the Jehovah's Witness position would violate the continuity of identity between Michael and Jesus. It cannot work and is not true.

I'm not Protestant but John MacArthur has a very good article on Jesus giving up his authority when he was incarnated. It's a good reference.

 

[JayJayDee]

And Michael is called a Prince, yes He is. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace, yes. Does that make them the same person? If you read in a novel that the main character walked by a Policeman and a chapter later, he walked by another policeman, would you automatically assume they were the same person because they were both cops? Especially if one was a lieutenant and the other a captain? Of course not. Just sharing a title doesn't mean your the same as someone else right? And as for Jesus,

Are you seriously listening to yourself?
So it's OK for you to say that just because two individuals are called by the same title that it doesn't mean that they are the same person, but when Jehovah's Witnesses use that same argument about the trinity, it doesn't apply? How convenient! Three gods passing by one another don't jump into one godhead. Where is that taught in all of scripture?

He is also the King of Kings which is far above a mere chief prince, who is among equals.

This second part of your argument is rather amusing as well....who said he was among equals? That is what you assume from the text, but it isn't what the Bible says......."one of the foremost Princes" does not indicate equals when you understand that there is only one Archangel. No one ranks above him, even though others too may rank highly.

So "King of Kings" trumps a "Prince" in your opinion? Tell that to Isaiah. He calls Jesus the "Prince of Peace" and also a "mighty God". So a "Prince" can be a "god" as well apparently. You notice that he is not called "Almighty God" though...that would be because he isn't.

 

[JayJayDee]

Actually, it's a classic example of not knowing the purpose of Jesus. Which you don't.

Please tell us, according to your knowledge of scripture why Jesus came. The big picture is always a good one to have.
What was his purpose?

Remember this. What is not incarnated, is not redeemed/ransomed.

You'll have to translate this one...sorry, I haven't a clue as to what you mean by this.

All aspects of humanity are exhibited by Jesus in the NT. He's afraid, angry, obedient to his parents and God, he's said to be crazy, he's hungry, thirsty, he weeps, he feels pain, etc.

That is because he was 100% human. You can't be 100% human and be also 100% God. So was he 50/50? Where does it say so in the Bible?

Why did he have to be human to offer his life? Why did he not just materialise and do the job? How does it work...what does it all mean?

Would I be wrong to assume that you are Catholic? If you are, why do you hide your denomination like so many others here do? Are you ashamed to admit what "branch" you belong to? Or are you just dodging the inevitable flack? You know the whole glass houses thing?

 

[JayJayDee]

Is Jesus not called Son of Man and Son of the Living God?

Yes he was called "son of man" because he was....fully human born of a human mother in miraculous circumstances. He inherited no sin from her. That wasn't because she was sinless...it was because God's spirit was responsible for his conception. By means known only to himself, God transferred the life force of his son to the womb of a Jewish virgin so that he could rightly be called "the son of man".

He was called "son of the living God" which means that God was alive and was his Father....is that in dispute?

 

[savagewind]

Faith and hope don't exist in heaven. Only love does.

OK Maybe hope doesn't but faith? LOL. Really?