arch-angel

joe8585 · 10-15-2003, 09:00 AM

i was just thinking about this the other day. why couldn't jesus be michael the arch-angel. if we take the word archangel and break it down we see that "arch" means the head of or the leader. and "angel" means messanger. wasn't jesus the head messanger. also we know the meaning of michael is, "one who is like God." was Jesus not God. so by definition of michael the archangel it sort of describes Jesus.

also at Christ second coming doesn't it say something like He will descend with the shout of an "archangel". and that Jesus is bringing His angels with him, which also fits the definition that he is leader of the angels? i don't know for sure i just want your alls insight. thanks

Chris · 10-15-2003, 09:39 AM

I don't have an answer for everything but I'll do what I can.

Michael while meaning "one who is like God" is not the same thing as who Jesus is He's not merely like God he IS God. The name Emmanuel (one of his many)means "God with us"

That's all I can think of right now I'll find the rest when I have time and a bible.

Chico · 10-15-2003, 09:46 AM

being "like" God, and being God are completely different things. and how is Michael "like" God? i think that scripture makes it quite plain that Michael is an angel, which Jesus most certainly was/is not. i haven't really looked at this though, so i'll try and put some scripture with this later.

chris

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-15-2003, 09:50 AM

elementary dear watson...

Lets read Jude.

Michael was fighting the devil and couldnt rail against him. Jesus, as God created Satan, and could completely waste him with one little word of divine decree. In fact we see Jesus in the gospels saying harsher things to him than "the Lord rebuke you."

Also, in Daniel, Michael is described as the prince over the Jews. Jesus Christ is neither prince, nor confined to a people group. King of Kings and Lord of Lords is his title.

Mike Graham · 10-15-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe8585

i was just thinking about this the other day. why couldn't jesus be michael the arch-angel. if we take the word archangel and break it down we see that "arch" means the head of or the leader. and "angel" means messanger. wasn't jesus the head messanger. also we know the meaning of michael is, "one who is like God." was Jesus not God. so by definition of michael the archangel it sort of describes Jesus.

also at Christ second coming doesn't it say something like He will descend with the shout of an "archangel". and that Jesus is bringing His angels with him, which also fits the definition that he is leader of the angels? i don't know for sure i just want your alls insight. thanks

Because we do notknow much about Michael the Arch-angel anyways, and the one scripture pairing Christ with the arch-angel in no way states that he is one, and is by no means reason for making this unfounded leap about His very nature.

Angels are creatures, Jesus is not.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-15-2003, 09:54 AM

mike, he is listed as an archangel. I will find it for you later. What exactly that means? Who knows?

Chris · 10-15-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

mike, he is listed as an archangel. I will find it for you later. What exactly that means? Who knows?

but equating Jesus and Michael is a highly incredible jump wouldn't you say

joe8585 · 10-15-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Michael was fighting the devil and couldnt rail against him. Jesus, as God created Satan, and could completely waste him with one little word of divine decree. In fact we see Jesus in the gospels saying harsher things to him than "the Lord rebuke you."

true Jesus, could have destroyed Satan with one word, just like God can destroy us with one word today, but he doesn't, why? because God is love and he still hates to see any of us perish with sin in our lives. and obivously satan surely had sin in is life.

Quote:

Because we do notknow much about Michael the Arch-angel anyways, and the one scripture pairing Christ with the arch-angel in no way states that he is one, and is by no means reason for making this unfounded leap about His very nature.

im not saying that there is undoubtable proof that Jesus and Michael are one in the same. just pointing out that there are some common points in the definition of the two.

i don't know if there is enough proof to say that He is the michael for sure, but i think there is not a whole lot more to prove that this theory isn't true, at least not what i can find. granted this isn't a point of salvation or anything, just something i want to know so i can answer other people.

Chico · 10-15-2003, 10:48 AM

joe, do you honestly believe that the reason Satan isn't destroyed is because God loves him as a sinner. this is heracy. scripture clearly shows us that Satan will never change and the only reason Christ has not triumphed over him yet is because His perfect plan has not been completed. Christ does not love Satan.

chris

joe8585 · 10-15-2003, 11:12 AM

chris, does god and jesus not hate the sin but love the sinner. is god not fair to all of his creations. if this isn't true than that means God doesn't really love any of us for what we are. God loves us but hates our actions. i am not trying to justify anything, i'm not defending satan, my point was that yes God can do anything he wants but he chooses not to sometimes.

If God talks about love and that we should love everyone, and that God is love, don't you think that if he just snapped his fingers and destroyed satan that it would put questions in the minds of all the other angels in heaven. wouldn't you think it would create doubt in His so called love, that God loves them only as long as they do everything He says. what kind of picture does that paint for us as humans, that if we don't do what He wants when He wants, he can just destroy us. God is love. does any of that make sense.

Chico · 10-15-2003, 11:24 AM

don't you understand that God doesn't need the approval of angels or man to feel good about who He is? don't you understand that whether you want to believe it or not, God is going to destroy Satan? i guess there will be a rebellion in heaven because God killed an angel. holy crap.

the plan is set before us in scripture. GOD WILL DESTROY SATAN!!!! Satan hasn't been destroyed yet because the plan isn't finished. the script has been written from the beginning of time, the movie just isn't over. you act like God created Satan without knowing what would happen, and when it did happen, God was caught off guard. God knew what Satan would become, the plan is nearing an end.

chris

**Ted Logan** · 10-15-2003, 12:11 PM

Every Jewish name with "el", "yah", or another name for God that I know of is a statement of God's character, and not a statement about the bearer of the name. For example:

Elijah-- Yahweh is God
Jehoiakim-- Yahweh raises up
Samuel-- His name is God
Elisha-- God is salvation
Israel-- God will rule
Isaiah-- Yahweh has saved
Ezekiel-- God strengthens

The point is that "the one who is like God" doesn't really make as much sense, especially considering the nature of angels as messengers and therefore those who point to God's glory rather than their own, as the very likely (and only that I have heard) definition of the name Michael as a question: Who is like God?

joe8585 · 10-15-2003, 12:12 PM

bro calm down a bit. why are your pantys in a bunch? i know that satan will be destroyed, i never hinted that he wouldn't. my point is that just because he wasn't destroyed while in heaven doesn't mean that it totally proves that Michael isn't Jesus. and just like you say the script was written before time, the movie isn't over yet. maybe the script had Michael/Jesus fighting with satan and not destroying him. the point is that your argument doesn't prove anything to the fact that Jesus could not possibly be michael just because satan wasn't destroyed.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-15-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe8585

bro calm down a bit. why are your pantys in a bunch? i know that satan will be destroyed, i never hinted that he wouldn't. my point is that just because he wasn't destroyed while in heaven doesn't mean that it totally proves that Michael isn't Jesus. and just like you say the script was written before time, the movie isn't over yet. maybe the script had Michael/Jesus fighting with satan and not destroying him. the point is that your argument doesn't prove anything to the fact that Jesus could not possibly be michael just because satan wasn't destroyed.

Read Jude

Satan is an angel

Angels have 0% chance of redemption according to Jude. Nowhere was Christ given for angels. The fact that Michael did not dare to make a railing accusation is clear proof that Michael is not the creator.

My point had nothing to do with the lack of destruction of satan, but the fear of him exhibited by michael which would be ludicrous for an omnipotent creator to have of a finitely powerful creature.

Also if Jesus was an angel, he would have provided redemption for angels, not men.

king · 10-15-2003, 12:28 PM

How does your theory hold in light of this verse? Hebrews talks about everything Jesus is greater THAN...

Hebrews 1:4

(Jesus) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.