Jesus = Michael?

[Hentenza]

it does, because no inspired person writes a book full of nonsense and one verse that's accurate and from God.

so, why is the rest of it missing?

Jude became part of the canon in the 4th century. The canon is closed. If you want to question its inspiration then that’s on you. The book of Jude is not missing anything. Jude, the half brother of Jesus, wrote it with the urgency to expose the false teachers that were infiltrating the church then.

 

[johansen]

Jude became part of the canon in the 4th century. The canon is closed. If you want to question its inspiration then that’s on you. The book of Jude is not missing anything. Jude, the half brother of Jesus, wrote it with the urgency to expose the false teachers that were infiltrating the church then.

i'm not talking about jude's inspiration.

Jude would have had the full text of this

Assumption of Moses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and likely considered it to be legitamate.

Jude could easily have been wrong on that matter, and likewise with the quote from Enoch.

men make mistakes, even in 400ad.

 

[Hentenza]

i'm not talking about jude's inspiration.

Jude would have had the full text of this

Assumption of Moses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and likely considered it to be legitamate.

Jude could easily have been wrong on that matter, and likewise with the quote from Enoch.

men make mistakes, even in 400ad.

The Assumption of Moses was not chosen for the canon and is not inspired text. The “lost" books, like Enoch and this one, weren't included due to questions about authenticity, authorship, or contradiction with core doctrines. The book of Jude is not missing anything. God is perfectly capable of guiding man in preserving His word.

 

[johansen]

. The book of Jude is not missing anything

i'm not claiming jude is missing anything.

lets think rationally here:
What are the chances, in a book as long as 1 enoch:

only one sentence is inspired text. and jude read it, and believed it?



rather, read the wiki page:

An alternative explanation is that Jude is compounding material from three sources:

• general Jewish traditions about Michael as a gravedigger for the just as in the Apocalypse of Moses
• contrast with the accusation by Michael of Azazel in the Book of Enoch
• the angel of the Lord rebuking Satan over the body of Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah 3.

This explanation has three arguments in favour: (1) Jude quotes from both 1 Enoch 1:9 and Zechariah 3. (2) Joshua in Zechariah 3 is dead - his grandson is serving as the high priest. The change from the "body of Jesus" to the "body of Moses" would be required to avoid confusion and to reflect the historical context of Zechariah 3 in Nehemiah concerning intermarriage and corruption in the "body" of the priesthood. (3) The example of Zechariah 3 provides an argument against the "slandering of heavenly beings", since the Angel of the Lord does not do in Zech. 3 what Michael is reported to do in 1En1.[5][6]

 

[Hentenza]

i'm not claiming jude is missing anything.

I posted more than just the bit you quoted which explained my thoughts.

lets think rationally here:
What are the chances, in a book as long as 1 enoch:

only one sentence is inspired text. and jude read it, and believed it?

Now we are gambling? Chances? The only reason why only one sentence is inspired reading is because Jude included it in his epistle. I don’t ever go with “chance”.

rather, read the wiki page:

An alternative explanation is that Jude is compounding material from three sources:

• general Jewish traditions about Michael as a gravedigger for the just as in the Apocalypse of Moses
• contrast with the accusation by Michael of Azazel in the Book of Enoch
• the angel of the Lord rebuking Satan over the body of Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah 3.

This explanation has three arguments in favour: (1) Jude quotes from both 1 Enoch 1:9 and Zechariah 3. (2) Joshua in Zechariah 3 is dead - his grandson is serving as the high priest. The change from the "body of Jesus" to the "body of Moses" would be required to avoid confusion and to reflect the historical context of Zechariah 3 in Nehemiah concerning intermarriage and corruption in the "body" of the priesthood. (3) The example of Zechariah 3 provides an argument against the "slandering of heavenly beings", since the Angel of the Lord does not do in Zech. 3 what Michael is reported to do in 1En1.[5][6]

Which is the opinion of the writer of the wiki. The Bible actually mentions over 21 books that are more likely lost but no one is making the argument that they should be part of the canon also. For example, the book of Jasher in Jashua 10 and 2 Samuels 1 and the book of the acts of Solomon in 1 Kings 11. The argument in the wiki is actually quite weak as it relies on just similarities.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Its was explained in the part of my post you didn't quote. Please feel free to respond to those Scriptures.

There's nothing to respond to with those Scriptures. They don't say what you want them to say. End of debate.

 

[ViaCrucis]

it does, because no inspired person writes a book full of nonsense and one verse that's accurate and from God.

St. Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophers. When the Apostle quotes the poet who says, "In Him we move and breathe and have our being" the "him" in the original quote is about Zeus. Paul, instead, quotes it and uses it to speak about the true God, not the false imaginary gods of the Greeks.

Because St. Paul quotes a pagan doesn't mean the entire Pauline corpus is uninspired--it is still inspired Scripture.
Just because St. Luke records Paul quoting a pagan doesn't render the whole Acts of the Apostles uninspired--it is still inspired Scripture.

St. Jude quotes from 2nd Temple period literature--that of Enoch--but that does not mean the various Enoch texts are inspired; nor does it mean St. Jude's epistle is uninspired.

St. Jude's Epistle is a recognized inspired text: It is Holy Scripture.

so, why is the rest of it missing?

Rest of what is missing? The Epistle of St. Jude? There's no "rest of it" to be missing. We have Jude's entire epistle. It just happens to be a very short epistle.

 

[johansen]

Rest of what is missing

The assumption of moses.

 

[The Liturgist]

I thought that believe came from Jehovah Witnesses, who aren’t Trinitarian nor believe Jesus is divine.

Ellen G White was a very prolific writer. I’m not too familiar with her teachings or the teachings of the SDA Church.

The belief was common to Arian Restorationist groups in the 19th century, and it is contrary to Scripture, indeed even the name of St. Michael indicares his status as not Christ, for Christ is referred to as “Emanuel” - God With Us, and “Jesus” an Hellenization of the Hebrew Joshua and the Aramaic Yeshua meaning “YHWH Saves” - proof of his deity. Christ is not an angel, since all angels are creatures, and are pneumatic.

The epistle of St. Jude, which is canonical inspired scripture, further confirms our Lord’s status, and unlike the Pauline epistles, which some try to negate using 2 Peter 2:16 to shoot down any interpretation which differs from theirs, lacks any means for eisegetes to try to refute it.

 

[RileyG]

The belief was common to Arian Restorationist groups in the 19th century, and it is contrary to Scripture, indeed even the name of St. Michael indicares his status as not Christ, for Christ is referred to as “Emanuel” - God With Us, and “Jesus” an Hellenization of the Hebrew Joshua and the Aramaic Yeshua meaning “YHWH Saves” - proof of his deity. Christ is not an angel, since all angels are creatures, and are pneumatic.

The epistle of St. Jude, which is canonical inspired scripture, further confirms our Lord’s status, and unlike the Pauline epistles, which some try to negate using 2 Peter 2:16 to shoot down any interpretation which differs from theirs, lacks any means for eisegetes to try to refute it.

Amen! Well said!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well, I've looked this up several times and my closest conclusion is that Michael and Gabriel are most likely, real created angelic entities with theophonic names. Now why they have theophonic names? I don't know? Seems to have something to do with "rank of archangel". Archangels are the "generals" of the "armies".

The name Michael - loosely translated means "who most assuredly is God".
The name Gabriel - loosely translated means "God-man".

Now these are the only two "archangels" or "chief messengers" that i'm aware of who are named in Scripture. And the "armies" that they are the generals of; may be "angelic host" (Michael) and "army of believers" (Gabriel). As I've noticed that in any communication with human beings; when the angel is named. The name is always Gabriel. I'm not aware of any instances where Michael spoke directly to humans. The closest is in the Book of Daniel where it says Michael came to help Daniel. Although there appears to be nothing recorded as far as Michael actually saying anything to Daniel.

But I don't know any of this "for sure" because the information in Scripture is rather ambiguous.

Besides Lucifer though; there's only one other named angel is Scripture and that is Apollon or Abaddon Which are Greek and Hebrew descriptors of the same entity. This is stated as "the angel of the bottomless pit" and the name means "Destruction". And I do not believe this angel is just another name for Satan. I think this is the difference between "destroyer" and "Destroyer".

The closest "kin" to "Destroyer" is in Exodus; "the angel of the Lord" as "the Destroyer" is the one destroying the 1st born in Egypt. But that word translated "Destroyer" is not the same Hebrew word as Apollon / Abaddon. So is there some form of connection there? (I don't really know.)

So that's my conclusion. Michael and Gabriel are real entities with some form of metaphoric / theophonic names. Similar in the ways that Moses or Solomon are "types" of Christ.