Thoughting again!....oh no, is that allowed?

kcnalp said:

Michael is barely even mentioned in the NT.

Click to expand...

Three times in the OT (Daniel), and only twice in the NT. Even though Michael may be as powerful (or even more powerful) than Satan, he told the devil "The Lord rebuke thee". But Archangel Michael and his angels will defeat Satan and his evil angels, which is good to know. And in Daniel he is called "one of the chief princes" meaning that there are other archangels also.

It is also noteworthy that God has created hierarchies of angels, ranked one below the other (both for holy and for evil angels), with Satan as the "prince of the power of the air, and Michael over all the holy angels.

But God has said to all the angels regarding Christ "Let all the angels of God worship Him!"

Enoch111 said:

Three times in the OT (Daniel), and only twice in the NT. Even though Michael may be as powerful (or even more powerful) than Satan, he told the devil "The Lord rebuke thee". But Archangel Michael and his angels will defeat Satan and his evil angels, which is good to know. And in Daniel he is called "one of the chief princes" meaning that there are other archangels also.

It is also noteworthy that God has created hierarchies of angels, ranked one below the other (both for holy and for evil angels), with Satan as the "prince of the power of the air, and Michael over all the holy angels.

But God has said to all the angels regarding Christ "Let all the angels of God worship Him!"

Click to expand...

Enoch 40
8After this I besought the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, to explain all that was concealed. I said to him, Who are those whom I have seen on the four sides, and who words I have heard and written down? He replied, The first is the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael.

9The second is he who presides over every suffering and every affliction of the sons of men, the holy Raphael. The third, who presides over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. And the fourth, who presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is Phanuel. These are the four angels of the most high God, and their four voices, which at that time I heard.

NayborBear said:

Enoch 40
8After this I besought the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, to explain all that was concealed. I said to him, Who are those whom I have seen on the four sides, and who words I have heard and written down? He replied, The first is the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael.

9The second is he who presides over every suffering and every affliction of the sons of men, the holy Raphael. The third, who presides over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. And the fourth, who presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is Phanuel. These are the four angels of the most high God, and their four voices, which at that time I heard.

Click to expand...

Enoch 40?

kcnalp said:

Is Michael your savior? Jesus is my Savior. As was already mentioned, Michael is barely even mentioned in the NT.

Click to expand...

Tinkling cymbal

kcnalp said:

Enoch 40?

Click to expand...

That is from the book of Enoch. Something to think about.

Ronald David Bruno said:

Yet you say the the only begotten Son of God is Michael, an angel.


The Father clearly questions us in Hebrews about Jesus being higher than the angels, that He never treated them as He does His Son, not given them a position to sit on His right side of His Throne. He is the essence and exact glory of God's Light, power, Word, Love.
Jesus is the Creator. (Col. 1:16) God emptied Himself and became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14)
The Father calls Jesus God and clearly distinguushes Him from the angels. (Heb. 1)
Jesus is the Great "I Am", an intriduction He gave ti Mises that was fulfulled and detailed in John.
Angels take orders from God but never claim that they are the source of life, light, truth, that they are the WORD, nor do they ask us to believe in them for salvation. No they would point to Christ.
Angels are not to be worshipped or bowed down to - Jesus is. When He came into the world all the angels worshipped Him. They are under Him. When He returns, He will come with His angels, Michael being the head (general if you will) of the angels and Michaels voice will command the angels. This is what is meant by Jesus coming with the voice of an archangel.
Isn't it typical when a war begins for the Commander in Chief to issue the order to his general? HIS general gives an order to blow the trumpet and He yells charge.

IF Barney was a parrot he could learn to say Jesus is not Michael, over and over again. This would be an achievement. But unfortunately Barney is not.
Barney can you agree with this phrase: Jesus is Lord? And when He returns will you now a knee to Him?

Click to expand...

Can you say "STRAW MAN?"

Michael is not an angel, so no one here is claiming that an angel is God.

And no, I will not now a knee to Him.

I will be caught up with the rest of the redeemed to meet Him in the air. That's what the Bible literally says. The bowing comes later. Even the resurrected lost will do that. It's quite a ceremony. Interested? Or does some unrelated passage debunk that, too?

WHAT DOES THE NAME MEAN?

The meaning of the name “Michael” may present more evidence as to his identify. I present it here for your consideration.

The name Michael in Hebrew is מִיכָאֵל. Broken apart, we have מִי (pronounced miy) meaning “who,” followed by the conjunction כִּי, and then אֵל (pronounced el) meaning “god.” The Hebrew word מִי is interrogative, so the placement of a question mark is appropriate. Thus the name is quite literally a question, “Who is like God?” It’s Greek equivilant Μιχαήλ apparently means the same thing. Some scholars may interpret the term without the question, in which case it would simply mean “who is like God.”

Names in the bible have significance. Apart from Michael, there is only one other person who said something similar, and it was Lucifer, “I will be like the most high” (Isaiah 14:12-13, 14). Interestingly, a battle ensues between Michael and Satan in Revelation 12. So the one who thinks he is like God, confronts the one whose name means “Who is like God?” Now if the name is a question, the named one is pointing to himself in answer to that question, because we learned above that Michael is always a manifestation of Jesus under this name. If it is not a question, the answer is the same. Only Jesus is Michael, “who is like God.”

WHY USE THE NAME MICHAEL?

The meaning of the name may help us answer this question. Names in the Bible often represent the special characteristic of the person which many times we see connected to an event. Though we don’t always have a clear explanation as to why a particular person may have a specific name, the principle is brought out in 1 Samuel 25:25, where Nabal’s name is the target of Abigail’s explanation that he is a fool: “For as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him.” Likewise we see the name of Jacob changed to Israel based on his conversion from being a supplanter to being a prevailer, respectively. God’s special characteristics are also seen when we look at his various names. Jehovah (or YHWH) is his proper name, and it means “to be, to exist, to become” revealing that God is self-existent and disclosing. Here are a few examples of other names attributed to God which also provide for us important details about his character and activities in the lives of his people:

Jehovah-Jireh – Genesis 22:14 – means “The Lord Provides”
Jehovah-Nissi – Exodus 17:15 – means “The Lord is my Banner, Miracle”
Jehovah-Tsidkenu – Jeremiah 23:6 – means “The Lord Our Righteousness”
El Shaddai – Genesis 17:1 – means “Lord God Almighty”
Jehovah-Mekoddishkem – Exodus 31:13 – means “The Lord Who Sanctifies You”
Jehovah-Shalom – Judges 6:24 – means “The Lord is Peace”
We shouldn’t find it strange that Jesus would have other names. After all, isn’t he called “Emmanuel,” which means “God with us” (see Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23)? Isn’t he also prophetically called “David” (compare Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23 with ) We learned that Michael means “Who is like God?” and it seems like every time he appears he is always defending God’s people. Since names usually reveal an individual’s character then it’s plausible that Jesus uses Michael because it, like Emmanuel, reveals who he really is: The Divine Son of God who Protects his People.

FIVE OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

Now that we have identified who Michael is, I will proceed with responding to certain objections raised by critics.

Objection #1: Two different Hebrew words are used: I once encountered the semantic argument that the Hebrew word used in Daniel 10:13 is different from the one in Daniel 9:25, which is a reference to the Messiah. The argument goes like this: Though both texts say “prince” yet both words are from two different Hebrew words. The one in Daniel 10:13 is שַׂר which is transliterated sar, while the one in Daniel 9:25 is נָגִיד which is transliterated nagiyd. This difference, supposedly, proves that Michael cannot possibly be Jesus.

But imagine if I referred to Michael as a person in one sentence, and then I refer to Michael as an individual in the next sentence, and then say that these two terms prove Michael is not the same person. You would tell me that I am being nonsensical, wouldn’t you? Evidently, both words can be used and it does not necessarily prove there are two different people. It is the same with the sar and nagiyd. While both are not exactly the same, they are similar and can be used to refer to the same person.

Additionally, the word sar is also used to describe Jesus. Note the following texts:

“Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince (sar) of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down… And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince (sar) of princes (sar); but he shall be broken without hand.” (Daniel 8:11, 25)

It’s generally understood that the “prince of the host” (compare Joshua 5:13-15) and the “prince of princes” is Jesus. Jesus is often addressed as a prince in the bible, and Isaiah 9:6 specifically calls Jesus the “prince (sar) of peace.” Since both these terms are used to describe Jesus, than I do not see why this should cause a problem with identifying the appearance of Michael in Daniel 10:13 as a Christophany.

Objection #2: Jesus is not a prince among other princes: This argument relies on the words “one of” in Daniel 10:13. The claim is that Jesus has no equals so Jesus cannot be Michael because Michael is just one chief prince among other chief princes.

We first have to determine why the texts reads like this. A few pages ago we noted that there are two other princes in this context, the prince of Persia, and the prince of Grecia (verses 13 and 20), making it fitting for the text to say “one of.” In fact, there are several princes referenced in the entire book of Daniel:

The word “prince” appears 16 times: 1:7 (sar), 8 (sar), 9 (sar), 10 (sar), 11 (sar), 18 (sar), 8:11 (sar), 25 (sar), 9:25 (nagiyd), 26 (nagiyd), 10:13 (sar), 10:20 (sar), 10:21 (sar), 11:18 (qatsiyn), 22 (nagiyd), 12:1 (sar).
The word “princes” appears 18 times: 1:3 (partam), 3:2 (achashdarpan), 3:3 (achashdarpan), 3:27 (achashdarpan), 5:2 (rabrĕban), 3 (rabrĕban), 6:1 (‘achashdarpan), 2 (‘achashdarpan), 3 (‘achashdarpan), 4 (‘achashdarpan), 6 (‘achashdarpan), 7 (‘achashdarpan), 8:25 (sar), 9:6 (sar), 8 (sar), 10:13 (sar), 11:5 (sar), 8 (nĕciyk – “molten god, drink offering, duke).
That’s 34 princes in total, several of these are sar. Now it is my conviction that Daniel 10:13 says “one of” because of the two princes mentioned in its context, but it seems like every sar mentioned in Daniel is also some kind of leader or chief. If this is so, then actually Daniel was aware of many more sars than just these three, which would make the explanatory phrase “one of” all the more necessary.

Now we have to determine the apparent implication that this somehow means Jesus is the same as others. Though this may seem like the case, Daniel 12:1 settled the matter when it referred to Michael as the “great prince.” For example, you might have two managers in one office. One of them is a “great” manager, the other one not so great. In a company you can have all kinds of leaders, the CEO, the COO, supervisors, general managers, lead techs, etc. All are equal in the leadership sense, while some hold greater positions than others. This fits well with Young’s Literal Translation of the text which reads “first of the chief heads.” The point is that if Jesus is Michael a prince, Jesus is still greater than those other princes. I see no issues here.

Objection #3: Jesus would not be afraid of Satan: Because Jude 1:9 says that Michael “dared not bring against him a reviling accusation” it is supposed that this cannot be Jesus because Jesus is not afraid of Satan. But if Michael is not Jesus, doesn’t this imply that Michael is afraid of Satan? It seems to me like this argument is not very reasonable.

Actually, the text does say that Michael rebuked Satan, so no one is afraid of him. What he did not do was bring against him a “railing accusation.” Since this phrase quite literally means to slander, I expect Jesus not to act like a devil.15

Objection #4: Jesus was not speaking of himself in the third person: Another objection with regards to Jude 1:9 is that the title “Lord” refers to Jesus, and so Michael could not be Jesus because Jesus is not speaking of himself in the third person.

The argument fails to consider that the “Lord” in Jude 1:9 can be the Father, in which case he would not be referring to himself in the third person. Jesus himself addresses the Father as “Lord” several times. Two examples are Matthew 4:10 and Matthew 11:25.

Argument #5: Jesus is God, not an angel: To advance this objection critics will appeal to texts such as Hebrews 1:5-8 which make it clear that Jesus is not an angel. But these texts are speaking of angels as created beings, and of course, we do not believe that Jesus is a created being. The failure of this argument is to truly understand what Christians actually believe. Unlike other religions, we do not believe that Jesus is Michael a created angelic being, but that Michael is simply another name for Jesus. To suggest that Michael the Archangel could be a portrayal of Jesus is not the same as saying Jesus Christ is a created angel named Michael. To be clear, Jesus is truly God, but often manifests himself under other names and titles such as Emmanual, David, the Captain of the Lord’s hosts, the Angel of the Lord and Michael the Archangel, none of which needs take away from his absolute divinity.

Our study has revealed a couple of important facts about Michael the Archangel that I’d like to close by summarizing.

First, all five appearances of Michael in the bible reveals that he is much more than an angel. In Jude 1:9 there is a dispute that takes place between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, who we know was resurrected to life (Matthew 17:3). 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and John 5:25, 28-29 reveal that Jesus is that archangel who raises the dead. Daniel 12:1 further connects Michael with Jesus when at the appearance of this archangel we again see a resurrection takes place. Moreover, Daniel 10:13 and 12:1 reveal that Michael is the first and greatest of all chief princes, while Daniel 10:21 and Revelation 12:7 reveals that Michael leads the angels and God’s people. Since we well know that it is Christ, and not an angel. who is the greatest of all princes, and that it is Christ, not an angel, who is the commander of both the heavenly and earthly hosts, the conclusion is that Michael is simply manifestations of Jesus under another name.

Second, the many appearances of the “angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament prove that Jesus is that angel. Each appearance is identified as God or “the Lord,” and in a few of them the prophets actually see him. Since no man has yet seen God (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12), the evidence suggests that this particular angel was Jesus Christ himself.

Finally, the various objections raised have not debunked these facts. Different usages of Hebrew words have not refuted the doctrine, neither does the words “one of” in Daniel 10:13, since the very contexts helps us see why these words are present. The objection against Jude 1:9 fails as well, first because no holy Being would ever rebuke Satan in a sinful manner, and second because “Lord” in this text can and reasonably does refer to the Father, therefore Jesus is not speaking of himself in the third person. Lastly, the accusation that we believe Jesus is a created angelic being simply shows a lack of truly understanding our position on this topic. We believe Jesus was “Forever truly God.”

The idea that the various appearances of Michael was actually Jesus should bring comfort to believers. Every time he shows up he is defending the church by fighting against the enemy of souls. Jesus, “who is like God,” shows us by his alternate name that it is no mere angel or man, but God himself, fighting for us.

quietthinker said:

Categorizing makes the thinking process easier. In fact one needs to think very little because there are ready made determinations to slot folk into. What a wonderfull way to justify one's blind spots and one's denial. By referring to these categories as the truth one has a readily refreshed armoury of bullet proof justifications and mockings.

Click to expand...

Right on the button, QT.

kcnalp said:

Enoch 40?

Click to expand...

Yes. Enoch 40.

The Book of Enoch, Chapters 1-60

Is one of those books that didn't (for some reason) survive present day Bibles. Although "back in the day", it was pretty widely known and quoted at times.
Is a good read! Translated into modern english.

BarnyFife said:

WHAT DOES THE NAME MEAN?

The meaning of the name “Michael” may present more evidence as to his identify. I present it here for your consideration.

The name Michael in Hebrew is מִיכָאֵל. Broken apart, we have מִי (pronounced miy) meaning “who,” followed by the conjunction כִּי, and then אֵל (pronounced el) meaning “god.” The Hebrew word מִי is interrogative, so the placement of a question mark is appropriate. Thus the name is quite literally a question, “Who is like God?” It’s Greek equivilant Μιχαήλ apparently means the same thing. Some scholars may interpret the term without the question, in which case it would simply mean “who is like God.”

Names in the bible have significance. Apart from Michael, there is only one other person who said something similar, and it was Lucifer, “I will be like the most high” (Isaiah 14:12-13, 14). Interestingly, a battle ensues between Michael and Satan in Revelation 12. So the one who thinks he is like God, confronts the one whose name means “Who is like God?” Now if the name is a question, the named one is pointing to himself in answer to that question, because we learned above that Michael is always a manifestation of Jesus under this name. If it is not a question, the answer is the same. Only Jesus is Michael, “who is like God.”

WHY USE THE NAME MICHAEL?

The meaning of the name may help us answer this question. Names in the Bible often represent the special characteristic of the person which many times we see connected to an event. Though we don’t always have a clear explanation as to why a particular person may have a specific name, the principle is brought out in 1 Samuel 25:25, where Nabal’s name is the target of Abigail’s explanation that he is a fool: “For as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him.” Likewise we see the name of Jacob changed to Israel based on his conversion from being a supplanter to being a prevailer, respectively. God’s special characteristics are also seen when we look at his various names. Jehovah (or YHWH) is his proper name, and it means “to be, to exist, to become” revealing that God is self-existent and disclosing. Here are a few examples of other names attributed to God which also provide for us important details about his character and activities in the lives of his people:

Jehovah-Jireh – Genesis 22:14 – means “The Lord Provides”
Jehovah-Nissi – Exodus 17:15 – means “The Lord is my Banner, Miracle”
Jehovah-Tsidkenu – Jeremiah 23:6 – means “The Lord Our Righteousness”
El Shaddai – Genesis 17:1 – means “Lord God Almighty”
Jehovah-Mekoddishkem – Exodus 31:13 – means “The Lord Who Sanctifies You”
Jehovah-Shalom – Judges 6:24 – means “The Lord is Peace”
We shouldn’t find it strange that Jesus would have other names. After all, isn’t he called “Emmanuel,” which means “God with us” (see Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23)? Isn’t he also prophetically called “David” (compare Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 34:23 with ) We learned that Michael means “Who is like God?” and it seems like every time he appears he is always defending God’s people. Since names usually reveal an individual’s character then it’s plausible that Jesus uses Michael because it, like Emmanuel, reveals who he really is: The Divine Son of God who Protects his People.

Click to expand...

I think you are getting crossed up between some of the "names/titles" ascribed to Jesus, and the "government" He bares on His shoulders.

BarnyFife said:

Objection #3: Jesus would not be afraid of Satan: Because Jude 1:9 says that Michael “dared not bring against him a reviling accusation” it is supposed that this cannot be Jesus because Jesus is not afraid of Satan. But if Michael is not Jesus, doesn’t this imply that Michael is afraid of Satan? It seems to me like this argument is not very reasonable.

Click to expand...

No, not afraid, as a matter of propriety. It wasn't the angel's place to do so.

Jude 1:8-10 KJV
8) Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10) But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Men speak evil against what they don't know. But even the archangel Michael, when contending with the devil, didn't act that way. God Alone has that right.

Michael didn't, not being God.

Much love!

Enoch111 said:

That is from the book of Enoch. Something to think about.

Click to expand...

I think I'll stick with the Bible.

BarnyFife said:

Tinkling cymbal

Click to expand...

Says Kingdom Hall?

NayborBear said:

Yes. Enoch 40.

The Book of Enoch, Chapters 1-60

Is one of those books that didn't (for some reason) survive present day Bibles. Although "back in the day", it was pretty widely known and quoted at times.
Is a good read! Translated into modern english.

Click to expand...

I would guess it doesn't agree with our Christian Bible or it would be in the Bible.

BarnyFife said:

Objection #1: Two different Hebrew words are used: I once encountered the semantic argument that the Hebrew word used in Daniel 10:13 is different from the one in Daniel 9:25, which is a reference to the Messiah. The argument goes like this: Though both texts say “prince” yet both words are from two different Hebrew words. The one in Daniel 10:13 is שַׂר which is transliterated sar, while the one in Daniel 9:25 is נָגִיד which is transliterated nagiyd. This difference, supposedly, proves that Michael cannot possibly be Jesus.

But imagine if I referred to Michael as a person in one sentence, and then I refer to Michael as an individual in the next sentence, and then say that these two terms prove Michael is not the same person. You would tell me that I am being nonsensical, wouldn’t you? Evidently, both words can be used and it does not necessarily prove there are two different people. It is the same with the sar and nagiyd. While both are not exactly the same, they are similar and can be used to refer to the same person.

Click to expand...

As you've said, the words can be used different ways, so I'm looking more at the context, which identifies persons by name, telling us who they are.

BarnyFife said:

Since both these terms are used to describe Jesus, than I do not see why this should cause a problem with identifying the appearance of Michael in Daniel 10:13 as a Christophany.

Click to expand...

I don't see this either supporting or refuting.

Much love!

BarnyFife said:

We first have to determine why the texts reads like this. A few pages ago we noted that there are two other princes in this context, the prince of Persia, and the prince of Grecia (verses 13 and 20), making it fitting for the text to say “one of.” In fact, there are several princes referenced in the entire book of Daniel:

Click to expand...

Yet still the passage makes Michael one of others. Jesus is, as you've said, singular.

BarnyFife said:

The point is that if Jesus is Michael a prince, Jesus is still greater than those other princes. I see no issues here.

Click to expand...

And if He's not, I see fewer issues.

?

kcnalp said:

Says Kingdom Hall?

Click to expand...

Whatever you say, Seer of all things.

NayborBear said:

I think you are getting crossed up between some of the "names/titles" ascribed to Jesus, and the "government" He bares on His shoulders.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, but thanks for the smiley. Really.