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

[Erik Nelson]

The Name of Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord - LogosTalk

There are two Yahweh figures in Old Testament thinking—one invisible, the other visible and human in form. Judaism before the first century, the time of Jesus, knew this teaching. That’s why ancient Jewish theology once embraced two Yahweh figures (the “two powers”). But once this teaching came to involve the risen Jesus of Nazareth, Judaism could no longer tolerate it.
​

Think Michael Heiser is alluding to John 1:18, "no human has ever seen The Father" [= Invisible Transcendent YHWH], but the Son has made Him known [= Visible "incarnated" YHWH]

Dr. Heiser's argument seems consistent with viewing "the Angel of YHWH" in the OT as "incarnations" of The Word of God prior to "The Incarnation" of the Word of God into Jesus of Nazareth in 1st century AD Judea

 

[Erik Nelson]

What is God's Name? Feat. Dr. Michael Heiser | The Bible Project

Dr. Heiser makes a point that God incarnating happens repeatedly in the Old Testament, so it was expected that God would incarnate in the New Testament as the Messiah. Heiser says the question for an ancient Hebrew was not, "Is it possible for God to incarnate in a human?" but rather, "Is Jesus the chosen one whom God has incarnated in?"

The guys zero in on some stories of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Dr. Heiser says that in the Exodus 23, the Angel has God’s name “in him”. Then in Joshua 5, “the ruler of the Lord’s army” or “captain of the hosts of the Lord” appears to Joshua. Joshua is told to remove his shoes, for the ground is holy. This is the same language that appears in the story of Moses and the burning bush. In the burning bush story, it is the angel that is in the bush. Dr. Heiser says this is the same figure in all the stories. The angel is both an angel and Yahweh, yet is distinct from Yahweh.

In part 3 (33:00-44:30) Tim and Dr. Heiser continue to make the point that God was known to incarnate in physical form.
​

Occurs to me that the "incarnations" in the OT were somehow "transient", "ephemeral", here today gone tomorrow...

whereas "The Incarnation" into Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was much more "permanent", "long term", "corporeal", an entire human lifetime from conception onwards?

 

[Erik Nelson]

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ETSName.pdf

the Name was conceived of as Yahweh Himself whose presence was on earth [immanent] among His people.​

cp. Jesus of Nazareth speaking The Name, "I AM", showing that Jesus Christ was indeed The Name of the transcendent God Himself immanent upon the earth (?)

 

[Neogaia777]

The Name of Yahweh and the Angel of the Lord - LogosTalk

There are two Yahweh figures in Old Testament thinking—one invisible, the other visible and human in form. Judaism before the first century, the time of Jesus, knew this teaching. That’s why ancient Jewish theology once embraced two Yahweh figures (the “two powers”). But once this teaching came to involve the risen Jesus of Nazareth, Judaism could no longer tolerate it.
​

Think Michael Heiser is alluding to John 1:18, "no human has ever seen The Father" [= Invisible Transcendent YHWH], but the Son has made Him known [= Visible "incarnated" YHWH]

Dr. Heiser's argument seems consistent with viewing "the Angel of YHWH" in the OT as "incarnations" of The Word of God prior to "The Incarnation" of the Word of God into Jesus of Nazareth in 1st century AD Judea

What is God's Name? Feat. Dr. Michael Heiser | The Bible Project

Dr. Heiser makes a point that God incarnating happens repeatedly in the Old Testament, so it was expected that God would incarnate in the New Testament as the Messiah. Heiser says the question for an ancient Hebrew was not, "Is it possible for God to incarnate in a human?" but rather, "Is Jesus the chosen one whom God has incarnated in?"

The guys zero in on some stories of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Dr. Heiser says that in the Exodus 23, the Angel has God’s name “in him”. Then in Joshua 5, “the ruler of the Lord’s army” or “captain of the hosts of the Lord” appears to Joshua. Joshua is told to remove his shoes, for the ground is holy. This is the same language that appears in the story of Moses and the burning bush. In the burning bush story, it is the angel that is in the bush. Dr. Heiser says this is the same figure in all the stories. The angel is both an angel and Yahweh, yet is distinct from Yahweh.

In part 3 (33:00-44:30) Tim and Dr. Heiser continue to make the point that God was known to incarnate in physical form.
​

Occurs to me that the "incarnations" in the OT were somehow "transient", "ephemeral", here today gone tomorrow...

whereas "The Incarnation" into Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was much more "permanent", "long term", "corporeal", an entire human lifetime from conception onwards?

This is all good, and I like it very, very much, there is just one thing missing though, and that is that "Jesus was or became One who could incarnate in or through an Angel", just like His Father or any one of the other three members of the "Tri-unity" could, and did, many, many times, but it/They happened or incarnated themselves through Angels, which were created beings, and that's what may be missing here maybe...? Unless of course you think Jesus was just an-nother Angel or created being just and or any other Angel or created, and temporary in the eyes of God, anyway, just like any other angel or created, temporary in God's eye's and sight, "being", of course...?

Cause I think Jesus either was or always was or became "One" with that Spirit (the Holy Spirit) (God in the OT) (YHWH with nothing added) that was "One" or was always from or always proceeded from God His/Their Father, or all of each of our's "Father God", etc, be it (us) man or Angel, etc...

They are each Spirit, the three members or the Tri-unity, whereas the Angels are their incarnated forms, etc... And incarnated forms specific to each ones specific function, whereas as any one of the three members or the Tri-uinty (or Trinity) were all and any of them, etc...

When Jesus was here as man, or a man, he was man or a man, but that's not who He always was or who He became, which was much higher and much greater than just a or just any Angel, etc... Angels are more specific and more like specialists than God is, specializing in one area, or a few areas only, while any one member of the Trinity or Tri-unity specializes in all of them, being all of them, and/or knowing them all fully being them all, etc... And manifests specifically, and in physical from, through any one of them (any one of the three of the Godhead through any one of the Angels, etc), depending on who any one of them (The Trinity, the Godhead) needs to be at that specific time and place, and situation and circumstance, etc...

Anyway, just some of my thoughts anyway...

Very good info though, great info actually...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

This is all good, and I like it very, very much, there is just one thing missing though, and that is that "Jesus was or became One who could incarnate in or through an Angel", just like His Father or any one of the other three members of the "Tri-unity" could, and did, many, many times, but it/They happened or incarnated themselves through Angels, which were created beings, and that's what may be missing here maybe...? Unless of course you think Jesus was just an-nother Angel or created being just and or any other Angel or created, and temporary in the eyes of God, anyway, just like any other angel or created, temporary in God's eye's and sight, "being", of course...?

Cause I think Jesus either was or always was or became "One" with that Spirit (the Holy Spirit) (God in the OT) (YHWH with nothing added) that was "One" or was always from or always proceeded from God His/Their Father, or all of each of our's "Father God", etc, be it (us) man or Angel, etc...

They are each Spirit, the three members or the Tri-unity, whereas the Angels are their incarnated forms, etc... And incarnated forms specific to each ones specific function, whereas as any one of the three members or the Tri-uinty (or Trinity) were all and any of them, etc...

When Jesus was here as man, or a man, he was man or a man, but that's not who He always was or who He became, which was much higher and much greater than just a or just any Angel, etc... Angels are more specific and more like specialists than God is, specializing in one area, or a few areas only, while any one member of the Trinity or Tri-unity specializes in all of them, being all of them, and/or knowing them all fully being them all, etc... And manifests specifically, and in physical from, through any one of them (any one of the three of the Godhead through any one of the Angels, etc), depending on who any one of them (The Trinity, the Godhead) needs to be at that specific time and place, and situation and circumstance, etc...

Anyway, just some of my thoughts anyway...

Very good info though, great info actually...

God Bless!

I guess you could any of the members of the "Three" are both "here and there" while the Angels are primarily only here, but the members of Three make their appearance "here" (or in the physical) (any physical) through Angels, or the Angels, when they need to manifest as a "specific something" to us, etc...

The only exception being Jesus form, or actual physical body while He was here on earth which He will still have and be in on the throne in Heaven, (though a glorified body now) but He (Jesus) is, or will still be, both "here and there", or "there or here", while the rest of us and the Angels, will mostly just be primarily "here" (in a, or some kind of still physical realm), but each with at least a part of God's Spirit living in us, etc, and how God's "overall Spirit" will or can or could act in and through us and with us, etc...

Random thoughts, sorry, my brain is firing off right now...

God Bless!

 

[Erik Nelson]

They are each Spirit, the three members or the Tri-unity, whereas the Angels are their incarnated forms, etc... And incarnated forms specific to each ones specific function, whereas as any one of the three members or the Tri-uinty (or Trinity) were all and any of them, etc...

When Jesus was here as man, or a man, he was man or a man, but that's not who He always was or who He became, which was much higher and much greater than just a or just any Angel, etc... Angels are more specific and more like specialists than God is, specializing in one area, or a few areas only, while any one member of the Trinity or Tri-unity specializes in all of them, being all of them, and/or knowing them all fully being them all, etc... And manifests specifically, and in physical from, through any one of them (any one of the three of the Godhead through any one of the Angels, etc), depending on who any one of them (The Trinity, the Godhead) needs to be at that specific time and place, and situation and circumstance, etc...

Anyway, just some of my thoughts anyway...

Very good info though, great info actually...

God Bless!

basically yes, although The Father Himself has never yet directly incarnated into earth history (maybe at FJ = GWTJ ?)

The Father is spirit (remote & transcendent), and His Angel on earth = His Word incarnate on earth (immanent & corporeal)

But I suppose that The Word of God might have "one foot in both realms", such that one could in principle distinguish between The Word transcendent, remote, "aloof" in the 3rd heaven with The Father...

and The Word immanent, incarnate on earth ?

Likewise the Spirit might have a transcendent 3rd-heavenly aspect somewhat distinguishable from the activity of the Spirit in earth history?

But, possibly excepting the GWT of God at Final Judgement, The Father has never (yet) incarnated into earth history, John 1:18, "no person has ever seen the Father"

 

[Erik Nelson]

 

[Neogaia777]

basically yes, although The Father Himself has never yet directly incarnated into earth history (maybe at FJ = GWTJ ?)

The Father is spirit (remote & transcendent), and His Angel on earth = His Word incarnate on earth (immanent & corporeal)

But I suppose that The Word of God might have "one foot in both realms", such that one could in principle distinguish between The Word transcendent, remote, "aloof" in the 3rd heaven with The Father...

and The Word immanent, incarnate on earth ?

Likewise the Spirit might have a transcendent 3rd-heavenly aspect somewhat distinguishable from the activity of the Spirit in earth history?

But, possibly excepting the GWT of God at Final Judgement, The Father has never (yet) incarnated into earth history, John 1:18, "no person has ever seen the Father"

In-between "like" and "agree"...

Good posts man!

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

View attachment 267563

I like this...

God Bless!

 

[Erik Nelson]

I like this...

God Bless!

trying to use as much traditional, historical language as possible...

Perhaps when the Word enters our created space-time from the transcendent "hyperspace" realm beyond, it's called "incarnation"

• Word = transcendent in "hyperspace" beyond space-and-time
• Word incarnate = immanent in our "fabric" of space-and-time

Likewise, when the Spirit enters our "fabric" of space-and-time, it's called "inspiration"

• Spirit = transcendent in "hyperspatial realm" beyond space-and-time
• Spirit inspirate (???) = immanent within space-and-time

 

[Dkh587]

Hello @icedragon101, what is said here....

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!”​

....makes it impossible for me to confuse Michael the Archangel with the Lord Jesus/God the Son. Does it not for you as well?

--David

Judah was quoting a writing that was not part of the scriptures - the Assumption of Moses is believed to be what he was quoting - you won’t find it written in the Law & Prophets.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Lord Jesus Himself would simply say "BE GONE!" to the devil.
Jesus' archangels, all obedient to Jesus and all subject to Jesus, had the AUTHORITY to rebuke the devil with "The Lord (Jesus) rebuke you!"

It is a false Jesus to think Jesus is Michael, ever.

 

[St_Worm2]

Judah was quoting a writing that was not part of the scriptures - the Assumption of Moses is believed to be what he was quoting - you won’t find it written in the Law & Prophets.

Hello Dkh587, since you said - the Assumption of Moses is believed to be what he was quoting - do you also mean that Jude (or at least v9) is not the truth/not from God, and therefore, not part of the Holy Writ?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Dkh587]

Hello Dkh587, since you said - the Assumption of Moses is believed to be what he was quoting - do you also mean that Jude (or at least v9) is not the truth/not from God, and therefore, not part of the Holy Writ?

Thanks!

--David

I question whether or not we should use it when discussing the topic of the Messiah being Michael.

how do we decide if it’s valid? Should we accept the entire writing that Judah quoted from?

 

[St_Worm2]

I guess you could any of the members of the "Three" are both "here and there" while the Angels are primarily only here...

Hello Neogaia777, my understanding is that the abode of the angels/the heavenly host is Heaven, and that they are sent here by God whenever they are needed. Do the Scriptures tell us otherwise?

Also, while God is omnipresent (meaning that all of Him always exists everywhere and at every moment in time), the Lord Jesus' glorified human body cannot, unless He no longer possesses a glorified, human body, that is?

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

I question whether or not we should use it when discussing the topic of the Messiah being Michael.

how do we decide if it’s valid? Should we accept the entire writing that Judah quoted from?

Hello Dkh587, we (Christians and Jews, at least of the orthodox/conservative persuasion anyway) believe that the Bible is God's breathed word, not because every word in the Bible was originally spoken by Him, but because all of the words contained therein, every jot and tittle (as I believe Jesus put it), are there by Divine inspiration (the Holy Spirit superintending the entire process, the writing of all of the Bible's human authors, from cover to cover).

IOW, whether the words contained in the Bible were originally spoken by God (like the Decalogue was) or they weren't (like the conversations between Moses and Aaron were not, for instance), ~all~ of it is still considered to be His word, because all of the words that are written in the Bible (every jot and tittle) are the words that we need to know, the words that He intended for us to have (so that we can know Him, and know the truth).

Along with all of the problems that an eisegesis inevitably creates for us, it is obviously a VERY dangerous practice to begin denying that a verse here, or a passage there, is not part of the Holy Writ, simply because a certain verse or passage teaches something that we don't like, something that stands in opposition to our chosen presuppositions, for instance, or perhaps in opposition to a sin that we enjoy and want to continue practicing, w/o guilt or fear. If we choose to do that, there is only one belief that such practices will eventually lead us to, that the Bible is nothing more a book, a book that we feel contains the best musings/understandings that we have about the Divine perhaps, but a book that is, nevertheless, from men, not from God.

So, it seems to me that it is not the Bible, it's our faulty presuppositions that need to be returned to drawing board and reconsidered whenever the Bible and our presuppositions disagree.

--David
p.s. - I believe this understanding sums much of this up nicely for us....

 

[Erik Nelson]

...because all of the words contained therein, every jot and tittle (as I believe Jesus put it), are there by Divine inspiration (the Holy Spirit superintending the entire process, the writing of all of the Bible's human authors, from cover to cover).

...because all of the words that are written in the Bible (every jot and tittle) are the words that we need to know, the words that He intended for us to have (so that we can know Him, and know the truth).

...it is obviously a VERY dangerous practice to begin denying that a verse here, or a passage there, is not part of the Holy Writ, simply because a certain verse or passage teaches something that we don't like, something that stands in opposition to our chosen presuppositions, for instance, or perhaps in opposition to a sin that we enjoy and want to continue practicing, w/o guilt or fear. If we choose to do that, there is only one belief that such practices will eventually lead us to, that the Bible is nothing more a book, a book that we feel contains the best musings/understandings that we have about the Divine perhaps, but a book that is, nevertheless, from men, not from God.

So, it seems to me that it is not the Bible, it's our faulty presuppositions that need to be returned to drawing board and reconsidered whenever the Bible and our presuppositions disagree.

--David
p.s. - I believe this understanding sums much of this up nicely for us....

Yes, very true, and what about the thousands of words, jots & tiddles (Yodh & Koph's of Yodh's in Hebrew) in the so-called Apocrypha, like Maccabees ?

 

[Neogaia777]

Hello Neogaia777, my understanding is that the abode of the angels/the heavenly host is Heaven, and that they are sent here by God whenever they are needed. Do the Scriptures tell us otherwise?

Also, while God is omnipresent (meaning that all of Him always exists everywhere and at every moment in time), the Lord Jesus' glorified human body cannot, unless He no longer possesses a glorified, human body, that is?

--David

When I said "here" I was referring to any physical realms including Heaven, they might transfer from here to there, or from Heaven to here (the Angels), but both realms, (heaven and here), are some kind of physical realms, and then there is another realm, that is the "there" that I referred to, that is the abode of God, where they (the three) are omnipresent from, or are existing at all places everywhere at once from, etc...

Apparently there is some ability by all (Angels) to manifest in physical bodies both here and there, or both here on earth or in Heaven, but I just don't think the Angels primarily reside in the same abode as the omnipresent God, or any one of the three members or the Trinity, that they (the three) are above and beyond the angels in that respect somehow...

Jesus could manifest in His body, or manifest or de-manifest his glorified body or in or out of His body from the abode of God, I would think, and be both here and there, etc...

I just don't think, or don't know that the Angels can do the exact same, might have some limited ability to, just not from the same abode of God, as God does or can, but from Heaven somehow, etc...

Anyway, just some of my thoughts anyway...

God Bless!

 

[Erik Nelson]

When I said "here" I was referring to any physical realms including Heaven, they might transfer from here to there, or from Heaven to here (the Angels), but both realms, (heaven and here), are some kind of physical realms, and then there is another realm, that is the "there" that I referred to, that is the abode of God, where they (the three) are omnipresent from, or are existing at all places everywhere at once from, etc...

Apparently there is some ability by all (Angels) to manifest in physical bodies both here and there, or both here on earth or in Heaven, but I just don't think the Angels primarily reside in the same abode as the omnipresent God, or any one of the three members or the Trinity, that they (the three) are above and beyond the angels in that respect somehow...

Jesus could manifest in His body, or manifest or de-manifest his glorified body or in or out of His body from the abode of God, I would think, and be both here and there, etc...

I just don't think, or don't know that the Angels can do the exact same, might have some limited ability to, just not from the same abode of God, as God does or can, but from Heaven somehow, etc...

Anyway, just some of my thoughts anyway...

God Bless!

St. Thomas Aquinas argued from Scripture that (in modern scientific terminology)

1. 1st heaven = atmosphere
2. 2nd heaven = deep space (interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic)
3. 3rd heaven = eternal transcendent "hyperspace" beyond the entire fabric of space-time

Only God the Father + His Word & Spirit dwell in the 3rd heaven, even Angels are created beings existing (if not as matter then energy?) within our creation space-time fabric -- they are not transcendent or eternal

 

[Strong in Him]

I just find it staggering that anyone could think that our Lord Jesus, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the eternal Word through whom ALL things were created, is an archangel called Michael.
JWs believe this, but they are a cult who brainwash their members. Christians should be promoting the name of Christ, not demoting him.

Scripture says that Christ is superior to the angels, Hebrews 1:3-4.
There is no Scripture which says that Jesus is Michael, or that his "other name" is Michael.