Karaite
Registered User
Posts: 1
(9/21/02 7:30 pm)
Reply
|
 Discussion on Michael and Jesus: Re to a JW
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES’ THEORY OF MICHAEL:
NOW I WILL GIVE YOU AN ACCOUNT OF THE TRUE WRITINGS
Quote:
Michael has authority over the angels (Rev.12:7) and so does Jesus Christ (Mat.16:27; 25:31; 2Thes.1:7).
I would ask that you be more specific, as opposed to being so vague in your writing. Revelations 12:7 states: “And there was war in heaven, Michael and [his angels] waging war with the dragon. The dragon and [his angels] waged war.”
According to the way you interpreted this verse, we could also conclude that Satan has authority over all angels, and thus is also Michael himself, or Jesus. Your logic is faulty.
Clearly, Revelations 12 is not giving Michael the authority over all the angels of God, but over “a portion”—his portion! (i.e., Michael and his angels)
Sure, you will say that Satan’s angels are not God’s angels; but I will say that it does not matter. Satan is described as having angels, the same as Michael is. While Jesus is never described as having a possession outside that of God; everything the Father has is also of the Son. That is why the Scripture states that Jesus comes in the power of the Father, with the angels of the Father. (Matt 16:27 cf. Rev 3:5 “My Father…His angels”)
Quote:
Michael leads the angels to defeat Satan and hurl him to earth (Re 12:7). So does Jesus. (Re 19:13,19).
Your words do not testify truth. Michael and “his angels” (not “the entirety of angels”) comply with God’s command, to throw Satan out of Heaven, for there was no more room for him. The Son of God had entered to glory. Remember Jesus stated that, if He requested of it, the Father would send “twelve legions” to aid him (Matt 26:53 cf. Dan 10:13,21). The same way, once He had risen up to the Father’s throne, the Father sent forth many angels, under Michael’s leadership, to battle Satan and his angels.
Furthermore, you compare Ch. 12 with Ch. 19. In this you are again erred. The battle in Heaven was not like the war on Earth. In Heaven, Satan was only expelled; on Earth, however, all were destroyed and judgment was also passed; the false prophet and the beast were thrown in the fire, forever. Satan was imprisoned. The dead in Christ were resurrected. When Jesus comes in Ch. 19, He comes to battle with/against “men” (kings of the nations) and Satan. Clearly, there is much difference. In one, we have Michael with authority over a portion of angels, while in the other, we have Jesus with the ‘heavenly armies’ or ‘armies which are in heaven.’ Also, when you notice the descriptions of the angels of Michael, you will see that Jesus’ armies are described differently. Ah, hold on, I don’t find any special description of the angels of Michael, not even a special description of Michael himself. Back in the prophecy of Daniel, you will find that there is one called to be dressed in fine linen, this is Gabriel. But what about Michael? Nay. Michael is not described as being dressed like anything. Another special characteristic that Michael lacks is, the ‘likeness of men’. Gabriel is described as “the man”, the Ancient of days gives all dominion, over everything, to “one like a human being”—a man. This is in the same prophecy in which Michael is also mentioned. Yet, you don’t find Michael ever been called “like a man”; not in Daniel, nor in any of the other mentions of him.
Therefore, one must agree that, in the description of the ‘armies that are in heaven’, which are dressed in ‘white linen’—putting them in a league of their own, for they follow one who is also dressed in white linen—the difference is clear.
The descriptions of Jesus, in the book of Revelations, and in the other prophetic books, never state what His appropriate name is—they call Him by titles, or characteristic (e.g., Faithful and True, Word of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, etc.).
On the same tone, the assumption that Michael’s authority to lead “angels” to battle is good reason to assume that he is Jesus, because Jesus also has authority over angels, is only begging the question. What about those who lead the legions (Matt 26:53)? Each legion is lead by a commander, are these also all ex-Jesuses?
Quote:
At 1Thes.4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel. The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative case. In all other occurrences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it describes the voice of the subject in the clause.
Let’s see the verse: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.”
I will offer you a few explanations of what “with the voice of” means. First of all, as you declare, “En” is used, and is translated as “with”. Well, this word does also mean “through” and “by.” Now, having this in mind, lets look at the ‘trumpet of God’. According to Matt 24:31, the elect will be gathered up by the angels, at the command of the great trumpet.
"And He will send forth His angels (with A GREAT TRUMPET) and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”
Notice how I put the phrase with a great trumpet in parenthesis; this was done so that you will be able to recognize the message I am trying to have you see. Now, look at the next passage, and see what this message is:
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that [the great trumpet shall be blown]; and they shall come that were perishing in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and they shall worship Jehovah in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.” (Darby Version)
You see the relationship between Matt and Isaiah? At the sound of the ‘great trumpet’, the angels go out and gather all the elect. We also know that the dead will be resurrected at the sounding of the trumpet, at the sound of the last trumpet. Now, let us look at that Scripture again.
“For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, through the voice of the archangel and through the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ will rise first.”
Darby translates “with a shout” as “with an assembling shout,” thus we could assume that the shout is the same as the sound of command, as it is exampled in the sound of “a chief-messenger” (Young’s Literal), and as it is exampled in the sounding of the ‘trumpet’ of command. All these three signify the same thing. The trump of God is to command. The assembling shout is also to command. And the same way is the voice of a chief, to command. The voice is being heard thru a channel; the archangel and the trumpet of God. The same as when John [4:1] states that Jesus was baptizing more than John the Baptist did, and then states that, in reality, it was not Jesus who was baptizing, but the apostles, who were [His] representatives. Therefore, Jesus baptized more, but it was done thru a channel (or channels). A messenger only speaks that which the One who sent him has told him to speak; therefore, it is the voice of the Lord, through the archangel, which is heard.
Another example of this kind of speech is found in the reference to God speaking to Moses. We know that it was the Angel of YHWH who spoke to Moses, but it is always referenced as YHWH speaking to Moses directly (“face to face”). The voice is heard thru a channel, but it is recognized as being from Him who sent it forth.
Quote:
If the title "archangel" also applied to other angels, then the reference to "an archangel's voice" would not be appropriate.
Says who, and on what basis? No such rule has been established by God. So, do you mean that Jesus should not be called ‘prince’? If there are others with this title, then you mean it diminishes Jesus? There are tons of princes mentioned in the whole of Scripture, but I doubt any of this will diminish the prince-hood of Jesus. Even in the spiritual realm, those who are assigned guardians of nations, these are called ‘prince’ in the prophecy of Daniel. And it could be appropriate to assume that these are the other “great princes”—for their might is in the nation that they are.
Again, with your logic you might as well conclude that Jesus is also Gabriel, and is also Satan. For Gabriel is described to perfection as Jesus is described in Revelations 1:13-16 (cf. Dan 10:5-6). And then we also find that both Daniel and John fall prostrate, in the presence of the characters which have been described. (Rev 1:17-18 cf. Dan 10:9-10). And then the Man touches them, and gives them strength. Why would a mere angel be described as such, and then have Jesus described as the angel? How could a mere angel cause such reaction, as to make its beholder fall down on the ground without strength? According to your logic, this diminishes Jesus. But to that, I say you can’t prove, in any way, how this will diminish Jesus. Satan is described with diadems on his head (Rev 12:3, 13:1), and so is Jesus (19:12). Are they the same? Is Jesus diminished? No.
Also, does it diminish God that He is described as ‘His Servant’ is described? See Daniel 7:9 and compare with Revelations 1:14. I believe that should receive a resounding, NO!
Nevertheless, the evidence point to the argument that He is not the archangel, but that His ‘word’ is brought forth thru the archangel. Which also gives support to the argument that, He comes with the archangel himself. (cf. Dan 10:13,21, 12:1) For Michael is at the disposal of the Prince of princes. (Matt 26:53)
Quote:
Jesus has been given authority by his Father to raise the dead. (Jn.5:25,26). But the voice of the archangel also raises the dead (1Thes. 4:16; cf. Dan.12:2).
Did you actually read these verses you refer to? There is no indication that at the voice of the archangel, do the dead in Christ rise; as opposed to them rising at the sound of the assembling shout, or the trumpet of God. On the other hand, there is evidence that the dead will rise at the sound of the trumpet, and at the sound of His voice. This is, of course, at the sound of the shout; which is also translated as “voice of command.” (Reina-Valera) It could also be translated as “loud word of command.” (Weymouth NT)
Now, the fact is that, at the time when the voice of the archangel sounds, at that time will also the dead rise. But the rise is not by the authority of archangel, but by the authority of Jesus, which is carried over by those who go forth from Him. That is why at the sound, they all go out and gather the elect, for that is the command of Jesus. Also, remember that I can agree, that the word spoken by the archangel will carry Jesus’ command, but I can’t assume that the archangel’s is the only voice that is heard, since there are three mentions of ‘sound.’
You also try to prove your point with a quote on 1Thes, and then ask to compare with Dan 12:2. But you forget that, first of all, each Scripture has to prove what the other states. That means, we have to see in Dan 12, how it is that the “voice of the archangel” will raise the dead—this we don’t find. There is not even a mention of Michael’s speech, at any point in the prophecy of Daniel. As regards 1Thes, I have already commented on it previously. So we see that these references do not match what you claim.
Quote:
Michael is called "the great prince" (Dan. 12:1). Christ is called a "princely ruler" and "prince of peace" (Isa.9:6).
Heh,heh. I already rejected this idea. There are tons of others who are also called prince. If you notice, however, Messiah is called Prince, but it is not stated that Messiah is the prince of the Jews. He is called King of the Jews, but even in this use, it is referred to as King of the World, as opposed to only of the Jews. For it is stated that when Messiah comes, all dominion will be His. Never is it stated that Messiah would be first king of the Jews, and then battle to gain power slowly. It is stated that the battle is not to enthrone Himself, but to dethrone the rulers of this world. He is given dominion and judgment by God, therefore, He comes to execute Judgment.
Secondly, we must remember that each Scripture must be taken in its context. Dan 10:13 states “Michael, one of the chief princes.” This means that Michael has a “high status,” for he is one of the princes which represent the nations. In the prophecy of Daniel, we find that each nation is represented by an angel, which is called ‘prince’. If you don’t accept this, then here is a translation that clearly states this:
“But I am going back to make war with the angel of Persia, and when I am gone, the angel of Greece will come. And there is no one on my side against these, but Michael, your angel.” (Dan 10:21; Bible in Basic English)
So, we resume to the point that Michael is one among many others. Michael has a high rank, for he is a head-representative of a nation. That is why in Ch. 12, we have the assignation of him being ‘a great prince’ representing ‘the great nation.’ (Gen 12:2) It is the nation that he represents, that makes him also great. That is why it is stated that he is one of many, for the other angels also represent great nations. (Gen 17:20, Jer 6:22, 50:9)
Thirdly, we must realize that the use of prince varies in meaning. In modern day language, a prince is only the son of the king. This was not the case in Old Testament times. Prince refers to a number of people. Prince is a term for the lead warriors (1 Kings 20:19, 2 Chronicles 21:9); this is the same use we find in the same prophecy of Daniel, where we have princes battling side by side with the kings. We also have princes who rise against their own kings. These are not “sons,” they are chief commanders of the armies. (Dan 11:5; Bible in Basic English translates “one of his captains”) We also have the term used as some type of judges. (Isa 1:23, 32:1, Ezk 45:9) And then we have the term we still use, ‘son of a king.’ Messiah is the appointed King, who is the Prince (son of God). When the term “Prince” was used to address the Messiah, the Jews understood it as referring to the proper term derived from ‘being Son of the King.’ We find this proof in the Gospels, where the high priest ask Jesus “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the [Christ, the Son of God].” Notice how they did not ask Him if He had asserted that the messiah was “Son of God,” thus claiming that He was the Son of God; but, instead, the question is if He was the Messiah, who also happens to be the Son of God; heir to the throne, divine Prince.
Therefore, as a conclusion can be reached by logic, we can see that just because Michael is called prince, or great prince, this does not mean that he was called prince in the same manner as Jesus was called Prince. The former is a warrior position (lower), while the latter is a divine position as Heir to the Divine Throne.
{Prince of peace -does not equal- Prince of war} What a contrast, don’t you think?
[/quote] In Daniel chapter 7, there is a prophecy about the march of world powers to the end of the age. At the climax of that prophecy we read that "someone like a son of man" was "given rulership and dignity and kingdom," and that one is Jesus Christ. (Dan.7:13, 14) In another prophecy Daniel wrote that reached down to "the time of the end" (Dan.10:13;11:40) Michael would stand up: "And during that time Michael will stand up." (Da 12:1) In Daniel's prophecy, 'standing up' frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as King. (Dan.11:2-4,7,16,20,21) Michael's "standing" indicates a ruler and supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah's/Yahweh's appointed King.[/quote]
You are wrong. Standing up in the prophecy of Daniel does not refer to kings alone, but to princes as well. It does not mean that someone is taking his ‘royal power,’ nor ‘acting effectively in his capacity as king.’ It means to ‘stand against’ or prepare for battle. Michael’s standing only indicates what has already been indicated, that he is preparing for battle. Again, I will refer you to the Scriptures that speak of Michael ‘coming to aid’ Gabriel in battle, or standing against the prince of Persia in battle, at Gabriel’s request. And then we also have it when Gabriel states that, he must go battle against the prince of Persia (to put him down), so that the prince of Greece may take control. (10:20-21) But Gabriel leaves after he puts down the prince of Persia, and will only reappear to put down the next prince. Therefore, we can conclude that every time that Gabriel appears, he comes with Michael by his side. (v. 21)
Please read the prophecy again, you will find that kings and princes take over what does not belong to them, and it is usually described as “rise up against” or “rise up…and come against” (8:25, 11:7,14,16) The examples of the horns and the he-goat, etc. Read them, you will find that when they rise up, they are not taking their royal power, they are taking someone else’s property. They also do it by battle.
By the way, does it not strike you a bit weird, that Michael at no point in time is mentioned to be ‘like a human being’?
Quote:
Both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event...thus the conclusion is obvious. Satan is abyssed by an *angel* for a thousand years. (Rev.20:1, 2, 10) The demons identified Christ as the one who was to hurl them into the "abyss" (Mt 8:29).
Oh boy. This is incredible. How can you come up with such conclusions? Revelations 20, states that ‘an angel’ was the one that came down to put Satan into prison. It does not state that it was “Him who sat on the horse” who came down to put Satan into prison. Secondly, Matthew 8:29, does not state that Jesus was going to throw them into the abyss. Why must you make up stories? Don’t give false testimony, for the Scriptures testify of themselves. The truth is not what you propose.
Quote:
The nations are destroyed by Jesus and *his* army of angels. (Rev.12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16) Jesus is also prophesied as the seed that is to crush Satan's head (Gen.3:15), but yet Michael with "his angels" who does this in Revelation 12.
Now this is a play of words. Sure, Jesus is going to put down the nations, and ‘His’ armies are going to come with Him to battle. However, the Scripture do not state that they are ‘His’ armies. The Scriptures state that they are “heavenly armies” or “armies which are in heaven.” In this case, the Scripture seems to imply that they are not just ‘one army’, but many armies. Also, you put it in words which would appear to be identical to those used in reference to “Michael and his angels,” which is good tactic to have your theory seem more plausible. You say “Jesus and his army of angels” and compare it to “Michael and his angels”—good one. But this is not the way it is written. It is written that one, ‘without giving Him any real names,’ will descend from Heaven, and the heavenly armies will follow Him. (And they are all riding horses, and wearing fine linen, white and clean.)
Furthermore, you claim that Michael crushed Satan’s head. Well, how come the Scripture don’t state it? How come it only states that he was expelled from heaven, and sent down to earth? How come there were two more battles left? (Ch. 19:19, 20:9) Actually, the last one is not really a battle, it will only be a fire which comes down from heaven, and will destroy them before they battle.
Quote:
Take a look at the webpage for more info and quotes from reputable scholars who have noticed a connection between Christ and Michael.
Well, it is the evidence that should prove it, not the fact that someone says it is so. The majority of theologians & scholars are Trinitarians. And most of them are reputable as well. This does not, however, prove the trinity. The same as having scholars assert that Michael and Jesus are similar will not prove that they are the same. Unless proven by Scripture.
Quote:
Also go here: www.jehovah.to/exegesis/g.../angel.htm for more information which supports the idea of Christ being an angel. (Albeit an exceptional and extremely powerful one.)
My problem is not with the idea of Christ being “the Angel of YHWH,” the problem is with the idea of falsely asserting that Jesus is the same Michael. If it was true, I would accept it. But the interpretations given have proven nothing. Thus I conclude this argument.
All and any comments are welcome.
Blessings!
Milton
If you are questioning, then that is good. But if you don't have reason to question, then that is unprovoked rebellion.
I like good discussions, why don't you come on over to my message board? ABNA |
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies