Michael the Arch Angel = Jesus??? Again. Sorry!!!

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The original language does not contain a question mark---it is a statement---there was no punctuation in Hebrew.

Don't know---never tried it---can a believer caste out demons in the other over 50 names of God/Jesus?
How about casting out a demon in the name of any of those in post #106? Let me know if it works.

The point here is that we do not see anywhere in the Bible where the disciples did cast out demons in some other name given to the Son of God besides Jesus. Why is this important? Well, Christians follow the Bible alone and not some outside spiritual ideas. For the moment we start adding outside spiritual ideas to the Bible is when we open ourselves up to all kinds of spiritual error.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
The point here is that we do not see anywhere in the Bible where the disciples did cast out demons in some other name given to the Son of God besides Jesus. Why is this important? Well, Christians follow the Bible alone and not some outside spiritual ideas. For the moment we start adding outside spiritual ideas to the Bible is when we open ourselves up to all kinds of spiritual error.
What if it is Jesus in their language...?

(just trying to make conversation)

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
What if it is Jesus in their language...?

(just trying to make conversation)

God Bless!
The disciples spoke either Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew correct...? And "Jesus" is an English translation of Jesus name right...? So, what if even they were not saying the English name of Jesus, "Jesus"...? Would it still have worked in any of those three languages...? And if that is the case, why not others, or other languages...?

I do believe they have to "mean" Jesus, and each the same Jesus, and know the one upon who are they are calling upon, however, and each be calling upon that one directly however, cause the spirits will know the difference or know whether they are or not, or if you are not, etc... And will probably get the jump on you at that point, etc...

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,913
NW England
✟1,041,301.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes!!! Captain of the host!!

No, the captain of the host, or commander of the Lord's army as the NIV says, was an angel; he was not God.

An angel is a messenger - someone who is sent by God with a message from God. He, himself, is not God.
The OT is full of things that are declared to be holy because they were dedicated to God, set apart for God, prayed over etc - a day of the week, Genesis 2:3, Exodus 31:14; altars, Exodus 29:37, Exodus 40:10, Leviticus 10:12; sacrifices, Leviticus 6:19, Leviticus 14:13, objects in the temple, Exodus 30:29, Leviticus 5:15; - and all who touched/wore/ate them were considered holy too. The OT also speaks of God's holy nation, holy hill, and holy temple. The NT speaks of God's holy city.

Even if the Bible didn't say that angels are holy, Mark 8:38, Acts of the Apostles 10:22, Revelation 14:10, they would be; because they are God's messengers, are around God's throne and come from God with a message from God.
So yes, Joshua fell down on the ground because he was in the presence of a holy angel, sent by a holy God. The ground on which the angel stood was therefore holy ground.

The text does not say that Joshua worshipped the angel himself - he worshipped God.
The text does not say that it was the angel who received Joshua's worship.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pasifika
Upvote 0

pasifika

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2019
2,368
634
45
Waikato
✟160,916.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The angel of the Lord is Jesus also. He has many names and titles and duties. He is also our High Priest.
Hello, this is an example of God speaking and act through an angel...Acts 7: 35-38, "This is the same Moses they had rejected with the words, ' Who made you ruler and judge?'. He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God Himself, THROUGH the angel who appeared to him in the bush...

Verse 37,38..."This is the Moses who told the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people'. He was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him (Moses) on Mount sinai and with our ancestors, and he received living words to pass on to us...

Things to take notice in the above verses;
  1. It was God Himself through the angel who appeared to Moses in the burning bush Not Christ ..this is also confirmed by Acts 7:30-33...it was an angel that Moses seeing in the burning bush but God spoke through the angel...
  2. It was an angel who spoke to Moses in Mount Sinai when he received the commandments...
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The point here is that we do not see anywhere in the Bible where the disciples did cast out demons in some other name given to the Son of God besides Jesus. Why is this important? Well, Christians follow the Bible alone and not some outside spiritual ideas. For the moment we start adding outside spiritual ideas to the Bible is when we open ourselves up to all kinds of spiritual error.

Right---and I do not use any other name----point being---there are many names and titles for Jesus, somewhere between 50-100 I read---and nobody uses them. We all use Jesus Christ and pray to the Father in that name. There are still all those names that were and are a part of who was and is.
Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving and will have a Merry Christmas and a great new year---God bless and I think I am done on this thread---thanks--stuff to do.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
LOL! Nobody else was there!! He bowed down and worship the captain of the host---Only God can make the ground holy and He was the only one there! Empty air does not a holy ground make. Captain of the host was Jesus. Deny it all you want. Doesn't change it any.
There was no bush there---and Moses worshiped who was in the burning bush

Exo_3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
Exo 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
Exo 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

You can say the angel of the Lord was not God all you want. God doesn't posses angels, neither do any of God's angels posses any human, only evil angels posses people--or any object.

Believe whatever you want.
how do you equate the "Angel of YHWH" = "Michael" ?

Even Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and the other Arch-Angels are created beings, made by God's Word, and so not God's Word ?
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,767
7,913
NW England
✟1,041,301.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right---and I do not use any other name----point being---there are many names and titles for Jesus,

None of which is Michael the archangel.

This is a JW doctrine.
It's up to you if you want to believe the teaching of a cult, but please don't imply it is a mainstream Christian belief.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ruffhaus

New Member
Nov 21, 2019
1
0
36
Hamilton
✟7,807.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Lord" normally refers to the Lord Jesus in the NT. That said, did you take note of the other words that I put in bold for you above (in Jude 9)?

In case you did not, here they are again.

Jude
9 Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
So Jesus, God the Son, did not dare pronounce a railing judgment against the devil? Really :scratch: It seems to me that the only way that works is if Jesus is ~NOT~ God, not a member of the Godhead, but a creature instead.

Is that where you are hoping to go with this thread?

Thanks!

--David
I know this subject keeps coming up over and over again, but I have a new question on Daniel 10. in 2011 I thought this doctrine had been debunked when I attended an Evangelical Church and the preached on this subject. As he was preaching I thought I saw the proof that Michael was NOT Jesus, but now I think I may have drawn a hasty conclusion. In the vision Daniel see what most believe a vision of the pre-incarnate Christ. Then he falls un-conscious and when he wakes up he is told by an un-named being that Michael had to be called to help, because he was resisted by the Prince of Persia, that is why it took so long to come to Daniel. The problem is that when Daniel falls asleep and then wakes up is the speaker the Pre-incarnate Christ or is some other being. If it is PIC then it is proof Michael is not Christ. If it is some one else then Christ could still be Michael. Does anyone know if the language indicates that it is one way or the other?


The Hebrew word in Daniel 10:13 for chief, it is rishôn rishôn which means literally first in time, rank and place. Michael the Archangel is Jesus. there are no other Archangels in the Bible, Michael is the only one. The Bible calls him one of the chief Prince's, which is a very unfortunate translation from people(Bible translators) who also didn't quite understand it all at the time of translating.
 
Upvote 0

Woke

Active Member
Supporter
Oct 8, 2019
239
82
71
California
✟38,620.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
that is not enough for me to hang a belief on
The terms used for angel in scripture mean messenger. So it is a relatively unimportant point if Christ carried the title of chief angel in scriptures or not. Christ is the word, thus he was the chief messenger of God. Whether he was Michael or not I see as inconsequential.

What is important is to recognize Christ's position over angels and men. Why? Because recognizing and then accepting it is what exercising faith in Christ means. Some Christians (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe the Bible teaches Christ is Michael as an archangel, in order to teach he is not God over angels and men/women.

The mistake Jehovah's Witnesses make in teaching that, and the illusion of their teaching, is that they equate Christ's position to his Father as if it affects both Christ's and his Father's position over Christians. That's a fallacy. It's like teaching because a wife subjects herself to her own husband then she is not a parent in equal status with her husband over her own children. And it's like claiming that her children must not recognize her as an equal parent. That's what JWs teach about Christ, that although the Bible calls him God (e.g. Mighty God at Isaiah 9:6-which JWs admit) he is not their God, only the Father is.

JWs have changed their Bible, the NWT, to conform to this false idea. At John 1:1 they claim Christ is "a god" or has the quality of being divine without the actual position of God over them. That teaching is based on the idea there is no direct article (the) placed in front of theos when referring to Christ. WT claims without the direct article the word god means a quality and not a position. Yet WT is proven wrong for in the same chapter of John he does not place a direct article in front of theou when John refers to the Father at John 1:12, 13, 14, 16, 18. Check those vss out in an interlinear, since I am writing from memory I might have one or two wrong. Nevertheless, the point about the absence of a direct article preceding theos at John 1:1 holds no water, because of its absence in these other occurrences (in the same chapter) by John.

Furthermore WT has misinterpreted the Greek word most often used for worship, but only when WT applies that Greek word to Christ (do obeisance to, instead of worship). Check that out in an interlinear also, and you will note WT's deception there also. See Hebrews, the Father had all the angels worship Christ. Check out the end of Revelation when John was about to bow down and worship the angel, but was stopped by the angel. Check out Matthew where the Devil asked Christ to bow down and do one act of worship to him. All these scriptures and many more use the same word, translated worship in the NWT, except when that act and word is applied to worshipping Christ. Note also that when Christ was asked to do that before Satan he said, "worship your god and serve him only." And that statement, by Christ, is what defines WT's teaching that Christ is not the god over true Christians as apostasy. Because JWs admit Christ received all authority in heaven and on earth, which signifies he has the right to rule over all others, and others have an obligation before God to recognize this right of his. That means all obedient to God must, by the word of God, recognize Christ as their God and serve him. Just as Christ said, "worship your god and serve him only." You could not serve Christ in the sense scriptures claim as your absolute ruler, unless as Christ said in that statement you "worship your god" as Christ.

Whether or not Christ was created by the Father, whether he is inferior to the Father in any way, or whether or not the scriptures ever spoke of him as the chief messenger of God with a name Michael is not nearly as important as accepting Christ as your God alongside the Father.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The Hebrew word in Daniel 10:13 for chief, it is rishôn rishôn which means literally first in time, rank and place. Michael the Archangel is Jesus. there are no other Archangels in the Bible, Michael is the only one. The Bible calls him one of the chief Prince's, which is a very unfortunate translation from people(Bible translators) who also didn't quite understand it all at the time of translating.
Hello Ruffhaus, and welcome to CF!

If you're assertion implies that every single Bible translation is wrong, don't expect to get much traction with it here. Even the JW New World Translation agrees with Christian Bibles in this verse. Do you have any scholarship that supports your words?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I know this subject keeps coming up over and over again, but I have a new question on Daniel 10. in 2011 I thought this doctrine had been debunked when I attended an Evangelical Church and the preached on this subject. As he was preaching I thought I saw the proof that Michael was NOT Jesus, but now I think I may have drawn a hasty conclusion. In the vision Daniel see what most believe a vision of the pre-incarnate Christ. Then he falls un-conscious and when he wakes up he is told by an un-named being that Michael had to be called to help, because he was resisted by the Prince of Persia, that is why it took so long to come to Daniel. The problem is that when Daniel falls asleep and then wakes up is the speaker the Pre-incarnate Christ or is some other being. If it is PIC then it is proof Michael is not Christ. If it is some one else then Christ could still be Michael. Does anyone know if the language indicates that it is one way or the other?

Isaiah 9 says we have been given a prince - and He is Wonderful Counselor Mighty God.
In Daniel 10 Michael is said to be our prince.

The prince in Isaiah 9 is most certainly God the Son who then became incarnate as man 2000 years ago.

2 options in the case of Dan 10

1. It is some other being... not God the Son and that being is highly exalted ... something like the way Christ is described in so far as he is also our prince.

2. The prince in Daniel 10 could also be that same prince who is Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God in Isaiah 9 and merely appears in the form of Michael when engaged in combat. So then God the Son.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Jesus is not an angel, maybe in some scripture may be the angel of the lord or something like that, but he is not an angel, sorry i didn't read all the discussion but...
Man's tradition often gets in the way of truth with the myths like this one. I haven't found the "origin"/ when and why this myth started,
nor "why" anyone simply a "Christian" would believe such a tall tale.!?
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
God's "Name" was in the Angel?
God's name with anything following "after it", is usually an Angel...

They bear the name also, just with something after it, or something specifying what the specialize in as a part of God, or part of God's body, etc... But God is all of them, while they are only a part or certain parts or specific aspects or parts of God, etc...

So, Yes, God's name, and presence, was in and a part of the Angels, or any Holy Angels of God...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
how do you equate the "Angel of YHWH" = "Michael" ?

Even Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and the other Arch-Angels are created beings, made by God's Word, and so not God's Word ?
They are parts of God's Word's, but only God is all of them, or all of His Word or Word's, etc...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
God's name with anything following "after it", is usually an Angel...

They bear the name also, just with something after it, or something specifying what the specialize in as a part of God, or part of God's body, etc... But God is all of them, while they are only a part or certain parts or specific aspects or parts of God, etc...

So, Yes, God's name, and presence, was in and a part of the Angels, or any Holy Angels of God...

God Bless!
We will also be like those angels also, each bearing his name in Heaven.

Revelation 2:17- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12- "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

That name is of course YHWH, with something following after it, or added to it or after it, though, of course...

It is the new name of Jesus and the Name of God, and will be the first part of the all the names of all the Holy One's as well, in Heaven, etc, for those of and belonging to Heaven, etc... Angels and us, etc...

He (God) is them, and they are parts of Him (God), etc, (All the Holy Ones or Holy Angels of God), as we will be, or will become, also, etc... And we will be bearing His name as the first parts or our new names, etc... But only He (God) is "The Name" with nothing else added onto it or attached to it...

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Jesus is not an angel, maybe in some scripture may be the angel of the lord or something like that, but he is not an angel, sorry i didn't read all the discussion but...

True. Jesus is God the Son. But as you say he may at times be referred to as "the Angel of the Lord" in the OT - but even in those cases he is also referenced as YHWH.

Interesting that even in Gen 18 when appearing to Abraham as a man he is still also YHWH.

So then if it is true that Michael is simply the warrior form/name/role of God the Son when doing battle with the forces of evil - it is still God the Son that we are talking about not a mere angel.
 
Upvote 0