Jump to content
The World News Media

IS JESUS ‘MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL’?


Jesus.defender

Recommended Posts

  • Member

IS JESUS ‘MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL’?


Watchtower Teaching WT claims that Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; and I Thess 4:16 teach that:

1) Jesus existed as Michael the archangel before his birth to Mary; then
2) Jesus gave up his spirit existence as an angel when he entered Mary’s womb to become a
human;
3) At the resurrection he was recreated as Michael the archangel.

They describe Christ’s progressive existence as angel, then human, then angel.

‘Michael, one of the chief princes’ (Daniel 10:13). ‘Michael your prince’ (Daniel 10:21).

‘Michael the great prince’ (Daniel 12:1). JWs think that Jesus must be Michael because of

Michael’s authority over other angels as a chief prince.
The WT teaches that Jesus Christ was Michael the archangel, who was born as a human, died
and was raised up as an archangel again. They refer to Jesus Christ as Michael the archangel.
(Watchtower, 15 Feb, 1979, p.31).

Bible Teaching:
1) Michael is ‘one of the chief princes’ (10:21), but Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son in
John 3:16. ‘Begotten’ in Greek is ‘monogenes’ meaning uniqueone of a kind. Michael
being ‘one of the chief princes’ means that he is just one among a group of chief angels.

Ask: Where is Jesus called a ‘chief Prince’ in the Bible?

Ask: Where is Jesus clearly mentioned in Daniel 10:13?

Ask: Isn’t Jesus as ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’ (Revelation 19:16) much higher in
authority than one of a group of chief princes?

2) Ask: ‘To which of the angels did God ever say ‘thou art my son’?’ (Hebrews 1:5)

3) The Bible mentions Michael the archangel five times as:

1. ‘Michael, one of the chief princes’ (Daniel 10:13)

2, ‘Michael, your prince’ (Daniel 10:21)

3. ‘Michael, the great prince’ (Daniel 12:1)

4. ‘Michael the archangel . . . durst not bring against him (the devil) a railing accusation, but said The Lord rebuke thee’ (Jude 9)

5. ‘Michael and his angels fought against the dragon’ (Revelation 12:7)

Ask: Which of these verses state that Michael is Jesus Christ? None of them.

4) The WT claims support from I Thessalonians 4:16 ‘the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call,with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet’(NWT)

Ask: If using an archangel’s voice makes Jesus an archangel, then having God’s trumpet makes Jesus to be God.

Note: I Thessalonians 4:16 doesn’t explicitly say that Jesus Himself speaks with the voice of the archangel. When Jesus comes from heaven to rapture the church from earth, He will be accompanied by Michael the archangel. It is the archangel’s voice that shouts, not Jesus’ voice. Jesus doesn’t shout, but Michael does shout. This is like what happens at the end of the seven year tribulation, when Jesus returns ‘from heaven with his mighty angels’ (II Thessalonians 1:7).

If angels accompany Christ at the end of the 7 year tribulation, then clearly Michael will accompany Christ at the rapture before the 7 year tribulation, so Michael cannot be Jesus.

5) In Jude 9, Michael did not have the authority to rebuke Satan, but Jesus did have the authority as follows: Jesus said ‘Get thee hence, Satan’ (Matthew 4:10) and ‘Get thee behind me, Satan’ (Mark 8:33)

Michael said to Satan,‘The Lord rebuke thee’, proving that the only one with the authority to rebuke Satan is God. So, Matt. 4:10 proves that Jesus Christ is the Lord God.

Ask: Since Michael could not rebuke Satan in his own authority, but Jesus could and did rebuke Satan, doesn’t that mean that Michael and Jesus are different persons?

6) All the angels (Michael included) are commanded to worship Christ. (Hebrews 1:6)

7) The writer of Hebrews asks several questions about angels and Jesus Christ, which prove them to be different persons:
i) ‘Unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?’ (Hebrews 1:5)
ii) ‘To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?’ (Hebrews 1:13)
iii) ‘Unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come (millennium)’ (Hebrews 1:13).
iv) ‘For verily, he took not on him the nature of angels’ (Hebrews 2:16)
v) Does Michael sustain all things by the word of his power? (See Hebrews 1:3). No!
vi) Is it right to honour Michael the archangel just as you honour the Father? (John 5:23)

😎 Ask: Do good angels refuse worship? (Certainly). When John fell down to worship the angel, the angel rebuked him, saying ‘See thou do it not ....worship God’. (Rev 22:8,9).

The Father commands all the angels (Michael included) to worship Christ. (Heb 1:6).

The ‘proskuneo’ worship that angels refuse to accept but say to give to God, the Father commands thissame ‘proskuneo’ worship to be given to the Son. Hence the Son cannot be an angel, but must be God. True Bible students soon discover that Jesus is no mere angel, but God. This lesson must be learnt so they may ‘honour the Son just as they honour the Father’. (John 5:23 NWT).

9) Jesus Christ is unchangeable: ‘Jesus Christ the same, yesterday and today and forever’. (Hebrews 13:8). The WT view of Jesus is that He was Michael who changed to become a man, and who at his resurrection changed back to Michael the archangel.

The Watchtower Jesus is changeable. They have a false and different Jesus.

10) Jesus Christ created all the angels, including the thrones and principalities of which Michael is a chief prince of a principality. ‘For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers’. (Colossians 1:16).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 130
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IS JESUS ‘MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL’? Watchtower Teaching WT claims that Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; and I Thess 4:16 teach that: 1) Jesus existed as Michael the archangel before his birth to Mary





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    • misette

      misette 213

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,411

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.