Is Michael Another Name For Jesus?

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).

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)?

No, it isn't. That's a myth perpetuated by those who have not done an actual collation between the several texts. The NT quotes the OT, as does 1,2,3 pseudopigraphical 'Enoch'.

Have you studied the unbreakable parallelism in Rev. 12?

The "Angel of the LORD" in the OT is none other than Almighty God (Exodus 3 and other passages).

Is this the parallelism you refer to?

Is this the parallelism you refer to?

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"?

If you read chapter ten of Daniel, the identity of Michael is revealed.

Daniel converses with his Lord as shown below.

Daniel 10:13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was standing in my way for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

In the verse above Michael is identified as one of the chief princes.

The human like figure earlier in this chapter is called, "my Lord", by Daniel.

Michael is but one of the angelic beings, princes, and definitely not the Lord.

No Sir, Just a Christian.

Love, Walter

I conferred with a native German speaker (a Christian). He clearly told me, that Luther stated that Michael is Christ. Google translate, does not do a good job with old German (and some Dutch) mix.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God, as the name signifies, truly and really God, and equal in nature, power, and glory, to his divine Father: "he shall stand up"; which is not to be understood of his incarnation, or manifestation in the flesh, for this refers to times long after that; yet neither of his personal appearance in the clouds of heaven, and standing upon the earth in the latter day; but of his spiritual presence among his people, and protection of them, and continuance with them: this respects the spiritual reigns of Christ, the Lamb's standing upon Mount Zion, and the 144,000 with him, Revelation 14:1, and this will be at that time, when the eastern antichrist, the Turk, will be destroyed; for the words are closely connected with the last verse of the preceding chapter; and when also the western antichrist, the pope of Rome, will come to his end; for, as they rose, so they will fall, much about the same time; and then Christ will rise and stand up, as the glorious Head of the church, and as a triumphant Conqueror over all his enemies, and take to himself his great power, and reign, and that kingdom which of right belongs to him.
The great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people; the King of kings, and Lord of lords, the Prince of the kings of the earth; great in his person, and in his office; great in dignity, power, and authority; who always did, and ever will, stand on the side of the true Israel of God: he espoused their cause very early; he wrought out salvation for them in time; he intercedes for them now in heaven, and will appear to be their patron and defender against all their enemies in the latter day: here it seems to have special regard to the people of the Jews, Daniel's people; whom Christ shall appear unto, and for, in an eminent manner, to convert and save them, help and assist them, protect and defend them.

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.

Looking at these two combatants, compare the surrounding context, this time starting with “the Dragon” (Who is like unto the Beast?), followed with “Michael” (Who is like unto God?):

[1] “the Dragon” and his several titles in Revelation 12:

[2] “Michael” and his several titles in Revelation 12:


After considering these things, let some questions be asked, and fill them in by the texts of the King James Bible themselves:

Who is the “Dragon” of Revelation 12:3,4,7,9,13,16,17 KJB?

Who is the “serpent” of Revelation 12:9,14,15 KJB?

Who is the “devil” of Revelation 12:9,12 KJB?

Who is the “Satan” of Revelation 12:9 KJB?

Who is the “accuser of the brethren” of Revelation 12:10 KJB?

Who was “cast out” of Revelation 12:9 KJB?

Who was “cast down” of Revelation 12:10 KJB?

Who is the one which “cast out of his mouth water as a flood” of Revelation 12:15,16 KJB?

Are there any “angels” which belong, “his”, to the singular person in the verses cited, KJB?

Does the fallen arch-rebel have many designations, KJB?

According to the text of Revelation 12:7 KJB, what is the arch-rebel's designation in “heaven” in this verse?

Who opposes the “Dragon”?

Who opposes the “serpent”?

Who opposes the “devil”?

Who opposes the “Satan”?

Who opposes the “accuser of the brethren”?

Whose “angels” oppose the “angels” of that "Dragon"?

Revelation 12 KJB:








Revelation 12 KJB

Whose “angels” oppose the “angels” of that Michael"?

Who opposes the one which has the True “testimony"?

Who opposes the “Christ”, even "Jesus Christ"?

Who opposes the “child", even the "man child" and "it"?

Who opposes the “lamb”?

Who opposes “Michael”?

According to the text of Revelation 12:7 KJB, what is the arch-defender's designation in “heaven” in this verse?

Does the Son of God have many designations?

Are there any “angels” which belong, “his”, to the singular person in the verses cited, KJB?

Who is the one who has a “testimony” of Revelation 12:17 KJB?

Who is the one to “who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron” of Revelation 12:5 KJB?

Who is the one “caught up” of Revelation 12:5 KJB?

Who is the “seed” of Revelation 12:17 KJB?

Who is the “child” and “man child” and “it” of Revelation 12:2,4,5,13 KJB?

Who is the “Christ” and “Jesus Christ” of Revelation 12:10,17 KJB?

Who is the “lamb” of Revelation 12:11 KJB?

Who is “Michael” of Revelation 12:7 KJB?

If the structure is truly Chiastic in its nature, then can the identification of the beings therein ever be broken [even according to John 10:35 KJB]?

If the Church is the Woman on the earth, and she the Body in Revelation 12:11-13 KJB and the Dragon fought against her, who then is the Heavenly Head in Revelation 12:7-9 KJB, who the Dragon warred against there?

From my understanding, JWS deny that Jesus is God.

.


I think they'd be okay with that if only they could see that Phil 2:6-11
entitles the Word's flesh to the name and rank of God.

Were I to argue the deity of Christ with a JW, that's where I'd put the
emphasis because it's much easier to discuss a man's ascent to the position
of God rather than trying to prove one of Adam's biological descendants has
always been God.
_

Looking at these two combatants, compare the surrounding context, this time starting with “the Dragon” (Who is like unto the Beast?), followed with “Michael” (Who is like unto God?):

View attachment 247926

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.