Is Michael Another Name For Jesus?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oct 28, 2022
240
32
28
Just BTW -

Absolutely agree "The Angel of the LORD" = Christ ((as in Judges 13, Exodus 3 etc etc)) but not convinced this is the same person as Michael. To me there are key attributes of all those accounts not present in the brief mentions of Michael in scripture, such as His name being hidden and Him being directly called "God"

I admit that this view makes Hebrews 1 more difficult to navigate, but IMO the way the OT so clearly equates the appearance of this particular 'Messenger' with God, and dileneates Him with the 'Ha' make the difference.
Ok, that is a common ground, or common place, then, to start with. The places that the Son, as you and I believe, is identified as "The Angel of the LORD". (Angel meaning Messenger, not Created, or coming into existence in eternity past, but simply in office/position of messenger for the Father).

Would you agree that this place (Genesis 32:24-30) also refers to the Son?

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Gen 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Gen 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Gen 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Would you agree that this place (Judges 13:10-22) also refers to the Son (as it seems this is to what you referred to when you said, "as in Judges 13")):

Jdg 13:10 And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day.
Jdg 13:11 And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am.
Jdg 13:12 And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?
Jdg 13:13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.
Jdg 13:14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.
Jdg 13:15 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee.
Jdg 13:16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
Jdg 13:18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
Jdg 13:19 So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on.
Jdg 13:20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.
Jdg 13:21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
34,107
11,964
113
.



To my knowledge; Christian Chat's terms of service don't prohibit heresy;
which is a good thing because heresy is typically subjective rather than
objective. In other words: whose thoughts would they cancel; your thoughts
or those of the folks who disagree with you? And what about management's
thoughts? Let's not be encouraging Big Brother oversight.


Terms Of Service
_
Yes,
Truth will out

Obvious proselytizing of obvious heresy is obvious, usually lol. The mods do remove people who are clearly antichrist, and almost no error gets posted unopposed.

But we can't have a discussion forum if nothing is allowed to be discussed.

So, we all need to lean to be gentle & wise together, not becoming enemies over disputable things but family through love, in and of the things of God no one can dispute.

I've hardly ever seen people changing other peoples minds, but The Spirit doing it in His own time, and brothers and sisters sharpening each other when we really take the time to listen.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
34,107
11,964
113
Ok, that is a common ground, or common place, then, to start with. The places that the Son, as you and I believe, is identified as "The Angel of the LORD". (Angel meaning Messenger, not Created, or coming into existence in eternity past, but simply in office/position of messenger for the Father).

Would you agree that this place (Genesis 32:24-30) also refers to the Son?

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Gen 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Gen 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Gen 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Would you agree that this place (Judges 13:10-22) also refers to the Son (as it seems this is to what you referred to when you said, "as in Judges 13")):

Jdg 13:10 And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day.
Jdg 13:11 And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am.
Jdg 13:12 And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?
Jdg 13:13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.
Jdg 13:14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.
Jdg 13:15 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee.
Jdg 13:16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
Jdg 13:18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
Jdg 13:19 So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on.
Jdg 13:20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.
Jdg 13:21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
Yes and yes; Judges 13 is one I mentioned myself. And Joshua, which is going to be your strongest case.
 
Oct 28, 2022
240
32
28
God SPECIFICALLY makes an unequivocal difference between His Son, and angels. Michael, is UNEQUIVOCALLY an angel.

You are severely twisting the Word of God to try and fit your heresy.

God knowing this type of heresy would present itself inspired Hebrews 1 to make sure those preaching a different Gospel, that His Son is an angelic being, is countered.

We all know what the word "angel" means. And in some instances in Scriptures it does mean just "messenger".

But angels are also a created "race" with different ranks, abilities, and offices. There is NO way to twist Hebrews 1 to mean anything but Jesus is DIFFERENT and ABOVE created angels. Which Michael is.
No, the Bible makes a distinction between the Uncreated Angel (Messnger) of the LORD (Father) and the created angels (like Gabriel, and the angelic hosts). That is the purpose of Hebrews 1. Yet, the created messengers (heavenly or earrthly) are the "fellows" of the uncreated Messenger (Son).

I have not twisted anything, but simply provided the texts (like Malachi 3:1) that show that the Son has the office of "Angel" (Messenger). It is not derogatory, nor blasphemous to repeat this from scripture. It is not heresy, but accepted by all of Christianity from the earliest post-apostolic (12 Apostles) times. I provided those citations also. Would you like for me to post them individually here for you to see?

Hebrews 1 is not against the OP, nor myself, but in full agreement, for as the Son is the "Angel (Messenger) of the LORD (Father)" does not make Him a created being, so too that the Son is the "Apostle" (one Sent) of the Father, does not make Him a created being. To speak for and to be sent by someone else, is simply stating something about an office, place or position, not a nature.

You do not accept what the word "angel" means. I provided the scriptural defintion, and the definition held by all of Christianity in the past. Your present and private definition excludes "office", "position", and substitutes in their place "nature".

Gabriel is indeed an "angel", but this says nothing about his nature, but rather his office, or position as given by God. It means he is a messenger. Other context dictates whether or not he is a created being, such as when persons attempt bowing down to him, he refuses, and says to worship God alone. That indicates this "angel" (messenger) is a created being.

Yet, when we see such words associated with the Son, like "Angel of the LORD", etc, the context simply refers to His coming on behalf of the Father's will, to say what the Father gave Him to say. It does not indicate Him to be a created being. It simply means He is a messenger for another. The context surrounding those passages, reveal that the Son accepts worship due to Deity. This means He is an uncreated being, but still a messenger. The two things are not exclusive, but reveal differing things about the person involved.

For instance, I can say that I am both a person of mankind (nature), and an 'angel' (a position of office, place or responsibility, a messenger for another, as John the Baptist, Malachi 3:1).

A person can be a human (nature) and a garbage (sanitation)-person (position, office, responsibility, job, function).

The word 'mal'ak' (Hebrew), or 'aggelos" (koine Greek) only means "messenger" (period). Neither word has anything to do with an inherent nature. it refers to position, office, job, function, not nature.
 
Oct 28, 2022
240
32
28
Yes and yes; Judges 13 is one I mentioned myself. And Joshua, which is going to be your strongest case.
No worries.

I am simply asking if you see the connection to Jacob and Judges based upon the question asked in each.

Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

Jdg 13:18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

If you see the connection, do you also see the connection to the following:

Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The words in Judges 13:18, "secret", and in Isaiah 9:6 "Wonderful"?
 

kinda

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2013
3,161
1,313
113
The legalism of SDA will not save you. the majority here as you say hold to the word of God And Jesus as the only way who is God as the word of God tell us.
It's very disappointing that many have such a negative view of the SDA ministry. I don't think many churches or denominations can stand toe to toe with the church, in my honest opinion.

This really isn't the thread to defend SDA, but if you look at all their ministries, you may wonder why it's viewed in such a negative light. My honest opinion, if they were Sunday keepers like most of the mainstream churches (Catholic leaning churches), they wouldn't be looked down upon so much. Maybe it's their strong protestant message that offends so much. They are probably the most Protestant Church in my mind.

If you don't like the church, well, just remember, they have a testimony of Jesus Christ, and keep HIS commandments.

Continue on with the thread......Sorry for trying to encourage a believer in the faith. lol. In now way did I mention legalism and salvation in my previous post, but nice distraction technique.
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
2,567
658
113
I didn't realize the SDA believed Michael were Jesus. I kept thinking they were being confused with the LDS but, now I'm confused. Do both groups believe this? or did I get mixed up about who believes what?
 
Oct 28, 2022
240
32
28
I didn't realize the SDA believed Michael were Jesus. I kept thinking they were being confused with the LDS but, now I'm confused. Do both groups believe this? or did I get mixed up about who believes what?
Seventh-day Adventists (as a link in the chain of the Reformation on back into sacred history) believe that Michael the Archangel is another designation for the Son of God (aka, "Jesus"), who is uncreated and eternally existing, from everlasting to everlasting, Deity.

The WTS/JW believe that Michael the Archangel is another designation for the Son of God, but take the approach that he is a created being, or the highest of all creation. This reason for this, is because the WTS/JW doctrine came from the Reformers, and into the early Great Awakening, Millerite, Advent movements (mid-1800's), but chose to go part way back to Romanism in it (by making Michael a created being as does Roman Catholicism, but identifying him as the Son (aka "Jesus) as the Reformation did).

The LDS (aka "Mormon"), teach that Michael the Archangel is another name for Adam the first, in "pre-mortal life"
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
2,567
658
113
Seventh-day Adventists (as a link in the chain of the Reformation on back into sacred history) believe that Michael the Archangel is another designation for the Son of God (aka, "Jesus"), who is uncreated and eternally existing, from everlasting to everlasting, Deity.

The WTS/JW believe that Michael the Archangel is another designation for the Son of God, but take the approach that he is a created being, or the highest of all creation. This reason for this, is because the WTS/JW doctrine came from the Reformers, and into the early Great Awakening, Millerite, Advent movements (mid-1800's), but chose to go part way back to Romanism in it (by making Michael a created being as does Roman Catholicism, but identifying him as the Son (aka "Jesus) as the Reformation did).

The LDS (aka "Mormon"), teach that Michael the Archangel is another name for Adam the first, in "pre-mortal life"
Thank you for obliging my inquiry! I will have to go back and read through the post to see if I can find any context addressing why it might be believed that Michael is not created which, if found to be valid, would then equate Him to Jesus.
 
Oct 28, 2022
240
32
28
Thank you for obliging my inquiry! I will have to go back and read through the post to see if I can find any context addressing why it might be believed that Michael is not created which, if found to be valid, would then equate Him to Jesus.
Ok, sure. No worries, be glad to help in any way possible. If you have any questions for me, ask here or in PM.
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
2,567
658
113
Ok, sure. No worries, be glad to help in any way possible. If you have any questions for me, ask here or in PM.
Thank you.

Fortunately, I've kept up enough that I've only had to skim back through to page 4 to find myself caught up. But I haven't run into anything that definitively equates the Angel of the LORD, or rather an 'unnamed' angel whose only designation is the definite article "the,' with Michael, who I believe to be 'an' angel' however arch-. It is my position that all angels (other than the Angel of the LORD) either were specified by name or separated themselves from the LORD by either referring or deferring to Him.

Imo, the strongest argument for Michael being Jesus is the meaning of His name, "Who is like God," However, in times that Jesus manifests Himself, He does so 'in the likeness of a man,' for example, wrestling w/ Jacob, while those that see Him know He is much more than just a man. Indeed, He is referred to as "the," or more specifically in Daniel 10:5 "'a certain' man dressed in linen.' On the other hand,

Michael and Gabriel are introduced exclusively by name, and by 'the man in linen' in Michael's case of which is in the context of the man explaining to Daniel his, the man's, account of his fight against the Prince of Persia (what's his name?), the Prince of Greece (what's his name?) and Michael (which logically follows to be called the Prince of Daniel's nation). Would it not also be logical to assume that the "Prince of Peace" is Prince of All (considering He shall bring peace to all heaven and earth)?
 

The_Watchers_2017

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2022
1,966
504
113
No, the Bible makes a distinction between the Uncreated Angel (Messnger) of the LORD (Father) and the created angels (like Gabriel, and the angelic hosts). That is the purpose of Hebrews 1. Yet, the created messengers (heavenly or earrthly) are the "fellows" of the uncreated Messenger (Son).

I have not twisted anything, but simply provided the texts (like Malachi 3:1) that show that the Son has the office of "Angel" (Messenger). It is not derogatory, nor blasphemous to repeat this from scripture. It is not heresy, but accepted by all of Christianity from the earliest post-apostolic (12 Apostles) times. I provided those citations also. Would you like for me to post them individually here for you to see?

Hebrews 1 is not against the OP, nor myself, but in full agreement, for as the Son is the "Angel (Messenger) of the LORD (Father)" does not make Him a created being, so too that the Son is the "Apostle" (one Sent) of the Father, does not make Him a created being. To speak for and to be sent by someone else, is simply stating something about an office, place or position, not a nature.

You do not accept what the word "angel" means. I provided the scriptural defintion, and the definition held by all of Christianity in the past. Your present and private definition excludes "office", "position", and substitutes in their place "nature".

Gabriel is indeed an "angel", but this says nothing about his nature, but rather his office, or position as given by God. It means he is a messenger. Other context dictates whether or not he is a created being, such as when persons attempt bowing down to him, he refuses, and says to worship God alone. That indicates this "angel" (messenger) is a created being.

Yet, when we see such words associated with the Son, like "Angel of the LORD", etc, the context simply refers to His coming on behalf of the Father's will, to say what the Father gave Him to say. It does not indicate Him to be a created being. It simply means He is a messenger for another. The context surrounding those passages, reveal that the Son accepts worship due to Deity. This means He is an uncreated being, but still a messenger. The two things are not exclusive, but reveal differing things about the person involved.

For instance, I can say that I am both a person of mankind (nature), and an 'angel' (a position of office, place or responsibility, a messenger for another, as John the Baptist, Malachi 3:1).

A person can be a human (nature) and a garbage (sanitation)-person (position, office, responsibility, job, function).

The word 'mal'ak' (Hebrew), or 'aggelos" (koine Greek) only means "messenger" (period). Neither word has anything to do with an inherent nature. it refers to position, office, job, function, not nature.
You need to read Enoch. There's a reason why Enoch is quoted so many times in the New Testament because the Jews held to his sayings like a Gospel.

Michael is most definitely created like the other Watchers.