Jesus and Michael

[Space Merchant]

On 7/9/2018 at 4:11 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

If we want to stick to Bible text and his own word, he said about self: "I am life, truth, way, bread, door, light, wine, water, rock ... " 

...so if translation are credible, he not only "expressed" those qualities, but all of that are his essence, his being, his self. 

We are sticking to the bible, Jesus is the life because by means of His Father, God gives life to the Son an through the Son, the very reason why Jesus is the Messianic King that God had chosen. He is the bread because by means of having faith in him we have eternal life itself, he is the door because by means of him we can reach God the Father, he is the wine because it represents his blood and what his blood enable upon his death and resurrection, the same implication with what the bread does, he is the water because His Father is the source of living water and only from him and through his Son, Jesus Christ, Chief Agent of life, can men receive eternal life, moreover, this is very explicit when you take into context of what Jesus had said to the Samaritan woman in John 4:7-15. Jesus is alluded to as the rock, Isaiah 8:14, and as this rock in regards to the houses of Israel who stumbled.

That may be the case, but as I have said before, look at the cross-references, than make the answer, perhaps understand as to why Jesus was called and or alluded to be such things.

That being said, in regards to this, it does not matter the translation because the information is there when context is applied.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:23 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

...so all angels with princes and chief princes and archangel are in fact - GODS :)) Ok, and what with that? Humans are gods, angels are gods. I now that verse you cited. If they all are gods that not explained Is angel Michael became Jesus the Human or not.   

god and or godlike ones, none of them are God no matter how you try to knock it. And the deal with that is because of a Law of which the Most High had made mention of, the same law that originated with him, even in the days of Moses, onward into the days of Jesus as well as Paul,even today this Law exists as much as the ten commandments exist.

I mentioned the verse because you made a claim in regards to John's Introductory which included the Genesis Act of Creation and onward. Jesus is indeed a god for if we are to remember correctly, Jesus was a born Jew out of a woman, born into the Law, everything he says in regards to what is written comes from the Law, this includes that men such as himself and others are called gods/godlike because God himself had spoken this into the Law itself.

That being said, you also stated Micheal is not a god, whether you believe Jesus is Micheal or not, any bene elohim of elohim is an elohim, in English any sons of God is a god/godlike. This includes Jesus, and if you believe him and Micheal are separate, it includes both, regardless of what you think of it, for that is the Law, and the Law is of God.

I believe I made the explanation, it is whether you choose to accept it or not. But it may be evident you may not believe that Jesus pre-existed and didn't dare to overstep authority in the presence of God way before even being baptized. For if the bible explains Jesus' pre-existence, if his name was not Micheal, you would have to explain who was really not trying to overstep authority in the presence of God for He was not named Jesus or Immanuel for he was not sent yet and or born in the flesh. In fact, all Spirit Beings, even Jesus at that time would not dare do such in front of God.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him" ... not to Michael  that is firm state from Revelation 1:1

If we believe that this book was written in the end of first century, and Jesus the Human was resurrected in the year 33, ...so why he still have the name Jesus if his heavenly name, original name and identity is Michael the Archangel??? 

And as to what point you are trying to prove with Revelations 1:1? This was in regards to the risen Christ himself.

That is simple, because even in those times Jesus himself had been given many names and titles, for we know Jesus is of God because he is the Son, he is the Word for he speaks the Word of God, hence even in Revelations he is called the Word of God, as well as the Lamb.

A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

In the book of Daniel, it speaks of the Great Prince and this same one was the one who took action on his own without the limitations of not overstepping authority in the presence of God.

As I said, Satan could not have been defeated twice by 2 armies when God has one Army of Angels that has a sole leader. Another factor would be that Satan could not have been cast out of Heaven twice, when this only took place one time regarding the Great War in Heaven, for God has appointed the greatest among his sons to lead such an army, for some it is evident that a King led such an army and this same army will be returning, led by the King, to enact God's justice against the wicked.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:47 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

I do not think the same. If Jesus is Michael the Archangel and vice versa,  he have all authority over every single angel. Devil is also angel and his status, position is inferior in respect to same person identity, no matter if you named him Jesus or Michael, because you claim how both name are point out in fact the same person. 

Jesus the Human, rebuked satan few times while in desert and finally command devil to go away from him, so your arguments are weak. So, if Michael is the same person as Jesus, how come that he as Archangel in heaven can not done more than as Human on earth? 

If you have forgotten, Jesus went into the wilderness right after baptism, authority and power by means of the Holy Spirit was on him and Jesus himself had the Father abiding in him, the very reason the temptation passage shows specific attempts Satan tried to get Jesus, as well as Satan's clear awareness that Jesus is God's Son, moreover, Jesus quoted the law in each temptation attempt Satan made and eventually afterwards, angels came to minister to Jesus, thus afterwards Jesus began the spreading of the good news gospel.

Moreover, Jesus himself also knew it was pointless to deal with the closed mind of the Devil, but he knew a day will come when God exalts him, he will enact God's judgement on Satan and dealing with him swiftly, regardless of him being in the presence of God the Father or not, but it is evident that God is with him always. Jude 9 is also parallel to Zechariah 3:2, to which even Trinitarians see this same verse that Jesus himself is speaking, yet they try not to brush over the connection to Jude 9.

As for Jesus' pre-existence, he as with all angels were in no position to overstep authority in the presence of God

• 2 Peter 2:11 - whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.

That in itself should tell you as to why Jesus said what he said before he became a man, and what he said as a baptized man to Satan and eventually later, as a King of the Spiritual House, what he will do and how he will deal with Satan.

And no, I am not making the claims, simply using biblical facts and history of Christology based on such a belief, if it was indeed a claim, the information would be lacking.

Anyways in short

Pre-existence

Jesus was not exalted, he was not given authority and power and clearly was not sent yet, therefore, he was in no position to enact authority before the Father, as with the other Spirit Beings, which was the case in regards with the corpse of Moses.

As a human, Baptism

Jesus had the Father abiding in him, and at this point in time it was clear that the one who has come to represent the Father and speak His Word, was sent, even Jesus made the claim that such as been fulfilled when he spoke at the Synagogue of Nazareth when handed the Scroll of Isaiah as well as his encounter with the Samaritans. Jesus was able to rebuke Satan until Satan went away, for at this point it is clear that Jesus had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for before he went into the wilderness, he had been baptized.

Resurrection

Jesus returned to heaven as sat at the right hand of God, was exalted above the other angels and returns to his position as well as given some evident promotion in terms of God's purpose and will. Jesus, leading the army of God will indeed return, for He, who is the Grt Prince will be coming with a Sword in hand to enact God's Justice on the day of God. Jesus was also the one responsible for casting out Satan and his Demons for He, the promised Seed, is the very one who is to deal with Satan and put an end to his evil once and for all, for that is what a King is and what he will do.

As for your other response: 

According to my present understanding i would say that M?ichael ac?ting und?er comm?a?nd of his Ki?ng Jesus.

There is nowhere in the Bible that Jesus is giving command to Michael. God had only one person deal with Satan and his demons in the Great War in Heaven, the answer should be obvious of who was really leading the angels.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

There is nowhere in the Bible that Jesus is giving command to Michael.

With same way of proving things, we can also conclude how nowhere in Bible said that Michael is The Son. That specific terminology are used only about Jesus in human life. With big S. All other creatures, heavenly and earthly are sons, with small letter s. If that mean something. Or big and small S,s are product of grammar that rises with time.

In WT literature, Bible (not any mentioned of Michael with this particular and most important information with this title, position, description) Only Jesus prehuman existence is described as he is "God's firstborn Son", and Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.   Again, is it possible to find in Bible some text with;  Michael the Son, Michael God's firstborn Son and  Michael only-begotten Son?  

Does this observation giving proof for your or mine conclusions. Or we both missing something to see. Everything is possible. At the end of the day, no one of us see things as they really are. :))

[Srecko Sostar]

45 minutes ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Then we all need to understand how the ancients thought not just in biblical terms but in every day, overall understanding of Gods. That’s the determination and correction Jesus was attempting to make, away from the Pharisees way of thinking.

Yeah, perhaps that would/can help. But, it is possible to have negative outcome too. Because if ancients have had wrong view and understanding about something, and we, today take such their standpoint and thoughts as relevant, truthful, but/or if we can't  differentiate -what and why- past time people saw wrongly or correctly, then it is hopeless situation again.    

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Or big and small S,s are product of grammar that rises with time.

If i noticed correctly ancient Greek and Latin alphabet was written mostly in Upper case (majuscule).

Wikipedia source said:

• Greek majuscule (9th–3rd century BCE) in contrast to the Greek uncial script (3rd century BCE – 12th century CE) and the later Greek minuscule
• Roman majuscule (7th century BCE – 4th century CE) in contrast to the Roman uncial (4th–8th century CE), Roman Half Uncial, and minuscule

[Space Merchant]

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

With same way of proving things, we can also conclude how nowhere in Bible said that Michael is The Son. That specific terminology are used only about Jesus in human life. With big S. All other creatures, heavenly and earthly are sons, with small letter s. If that mean something. Or big and small S,s are product of grammar that rises with time.

Unfortunately for you, it is not the same terminology as you claim.

I stated nowhere in the Bible your claim is proven, hence I quote you: According to my present understanding i would say that Michael acting under command of his King Jesus.

If Jesus commanded Michael it would be evident, granted that all angels are under Jesus' command, let alone Jesus' clear confrontation with Satan and his Demons. This is the same case with those claiming that Jesus is not a King because he never called himself one, however the verses that connection to this notion exist in the Bible, that is, if one chooses to accept what is there.

As for Jesus being Michael, there are clues and various parallel verses that proves this point, the very reason I addressed Jude 9 and Zechariah 3:2, oddly enough, you never made mention of the parallel verse.

Let's not forget the others

• Revelations 12:7 to Revelations 19:14-16 which has to do with the Great War in Heaven.
• Daniel 10:21 and Matthew 23:10 regarding The Leader of Israel
• Daniel 12:1 to both Romans 8:34 and 1 Timothy 2:5 regarding an intervening for the people of God.
• Jude 9, which connects both to Zechariah 3:2 as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:16
• And lastly there is Galatians 4:14.

It would 100% a baseless terminology if there is no such parallel connections of Jesus being Michael, but unfortunately you have such connections for there is but one Prince who dealt with Satan and one who has the command of God's Army, and such a position of commanding this army is given to God's Chosen One. Your next problem would be Paul himself referring to Jesus as an angel, let alone the very information in regards to Jesus' pre-existence, and the obvious fact that he was sent (Shaliah).

However, the question addressed still stands and I quote: A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

y

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In WT literature, Bible (not any mentioned of Michael with this particular and most important information with this title, position, description) Only Jesus prehuman existence is described as he is "God's firstborn Son", and Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.   Again, is it possible to find in Bible some text with;  Michael the Son, Michael God's firstborn Son and  Michael only-begotten Son?  

This does not only reside in the NWT Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses, so that is incorrect. The focus is pre-existence, before Jesus became flesh, a man, or in this simple sense, being born as a child to Mary, thus becoming human, and given the name Jesus, as well as Immanuel. And yes, Jesus is described as God's firstborn and only-begotten, mainly if you take into account the verses that connect with Genesis 1:26, clearly the Son was not named Jesus and or Immanuel at the time, nor was it alluded to, but this same person, according to Paul, this angel, was the one who took action as seen in the Old Testament and alluded to in the New Testament as seen in Jude and Revelations.

As for the logic you are using on that final claim, that is kind of absurd. The name Michael means "Who Is like God?" (Quis ut Deus?)

Jesus himself is of God and is God's only-begotten, mainly if you take into account of all the things he has gone through, death, being raised, etc. He is like God because he is God's Son, God the Father abides and does the works in his representative and God takes delight in his Son greatly, for Jesus is his beloved one by by means of His Son, we are saved and have a shot at being forgiven for our sins, as well as having this Bread and Water that is eternal life, being able to go through the door in order to reach the Father, etc.

Now clearly if Jesus and Michael were indeed separate, than that would mean Michael is greater than Jesus for he is the people of Israel and the one who intervene and saved the people, that would disqualify Jesus' role as a Savior, let alone Jesus' position as a mighty warrior of God. That is not the case. Jesus is a warrior, he is a leader of the people, especially in regards to Israel, or in this case, The King of the Jews. He is the great one called The Word of God and leading God's Army he will not be coming to bring peace, but a Sword, and we know warriors carry swords and leading a vast army into battle, that is the role and position of Jesus, mainly in regards to him being exalted so it is no surprise that the Great Prince himself has the name of Michael, Jesus, as well as Immanuel, in addition to the titles and other names of which he is called. If we are to be honest, we should be aware of others having multiple names too, an example would be the Devil, making himself Satan, at the same time, he is referred to as Beelzebub a name that is applied to Satan who is also a prince, or ruler, but he is the leader of the fallen sons of God, demons, moreover, we know that in the Bible, religious leaders tend to blasphemously accused Jesus Christ of expelling demons by means of Beelzebub. So it is no surprise that Jesus having the name Michael or that of Immanuel, despite the many names and titles, it still equals to one person who is of God, the one person who is only-begotten, again, application of context speaks a lot of volume. therefore, this terminology having parallels and connections further proves this point, in addition to an Apostle referring to the Christ as an Angel and we know that there is but one Archangel who has command over all the others, hence God's Army.

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Does this observation giving proof for your or mine conclusions. Or we both missing something to see. Everything is possible. At the end of the day, no one of us see things as they really are. :))

These are not my conclusions, if they were, the response would have been different, I bring up the information of those who hold this belief centuries ago, mainly the fact that such ones before us believe the only God is the Father and that Jesus is the Son. The terminology of which you claim shows no information of Jesus giving various command to someone else, let alone, so and so being possibly greater than Jesus, as you believe, but the reality is the two are one in the same, mainly if you take into account the parallel verses and the very fact that there was but one who cast Satan out of Heaven, a question I addressed I still await a response from you in this regard.

As for me, I see this 100%, for us CSE members we have to fully grasp and understanding something clearly before accepting the conclusion of such Christology, in this case, Jesus being Michael, and we are aware that this belief was centuries ago and did not really start this late.

What what is indeed missing is your view of the actual prince who really cast out Satan, for we have 2 parallel verses above, of which of the greatest among God was the one to throw the Devil out, based on your view?

[Space Merchant]

6 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Then we all need to understand how the ancients thought not just in biblical terms but in every day, overall understanding of Gods. That’s the determination and correction Jesus was attempting to make, away from the Pharisees way of thinking.

Indeed, however some people tend to take things out of context to spread something that is accursed. An example would be the belief in fiery torment when clearly God's view on the matter is seen in the Old Testament, or the belief that Jesus is God when Jesus claims to have a God, who is his Father.

The early Christians knew many things, but later on we have those who do not understand and twist things, therefore it is always a fight to bring forth the truth centuries later to present day.

Truth is like a spark of fire that never goes out, while the darkness itself is of those who teach something that is not of the Bible, eventually this fire will engulf the darkness and it has been growing day in and day out, even to the point that those not of the real Christian faith brings support to those who profess truth i.e. the people in the EU, to the West to Asia, etc.

[Srecko Sostar]

35 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Truth is like a spark of fire that never goes out,

hehe, this is some sort of irony. If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Well, that obviously means how WT was never in position to have real truth, all truth, Gods truth,  because if they had the truth from first day in 19th century when CT Russell create this Company, all teachings would be the same today too. Looks like "spark of fire" are lost somewhere, somehow. 

 

44 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

CSE member

is this what you mean with CSE?

CSE members are associated with some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

However, the question addressed still stands and I quote: A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

Rev 12:5,6 

“And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” 

12:7 " Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back."

"son, shepherd, child" is that Lord Jesus Christ? just borne and in next moment he fight with devil, but not as the King of Kingdom but as  Michael (just Michael without any prefix archangel, angel, prince....)??

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Now clearly if Jesus and Michael were indeed separate, than that would mean Michael is greater than Jesus for he is the people of Israel and the one who intervene and saved the people, that would disqualify Jesus' role as a Savior, let alone Jesus' position as a mighty warrior of God. That is not the case. Jesus is a warrior, he is a leader of the people, especially in regards to Israel, or in this case,

Why you think that Michael (one entity) intervention disqualify Jesus as Savior ???

That would be as you say how Jesus Christ intervention in saving people in Armageddon would disqualify JHVH role as Savior and make him greater than JHVH!!

That would be as you say how angels who went to Lot and his family to take them away (to save their life) from city of Sodom and Gomorrah disqualify JHVH role as Savior and made them greater than JHVH!  

That would be as you say how Moses, who was also sent, to free Israel nation from Egypt disqualify JHVH role  as Liberator and Lider  and make him greater than JHVH!!

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why you think that Michael (one entity) intervention disqualify Jesus as Savior ???

I was not mere thought, it was an example, an example posed before of in several Jesus/Michael arguments that have come to pass, re-read what I have written. I do not see how you are making the claim I am making this as an actual statement when the statement was posed after the example.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how Jesus Christ intervention in saving people in Armageddon would disqualify JHVH role as Savior and make him greater than JHVH!!

Where have I stated Yahweh is not the savior himself? I am pretty sure I brought up Romans 10 many many times here. And no. Jesus is not greater than his Father, to even suggest that is absurd. if someone was sent by means of Shaliah Principle, that alone should tell you who has more authority over than other for it's functions as divine agents, Jesus, being a Representative of God.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how angels who went to Lot and his family to take them away (to save their life) from city of Sodom and Gomorrah disqualify JHVH role as Savior and made them greater than JHVH!  

Shaliah Principle, simple as that, Angels come from El Shaddai himself, to save Lot and his household of what is to come for God was coming to destroy the city. Again, no where it is mention that YHWH's role as a savior is disqualified, let alone him acting through and by means of His Son, who is deemed a savior also.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how Moses, who was also sent, to free Israel nation from Egypt disqualify JHVH role  as Liberator and Lider  and make him greater than JHVH!!

You technically repteat what you just said, but the princple of which the Law professes still applies.

The fact you are taking my example out of context does not hold any foundation for this example I brought up, as stated, as been said before, therefore I make a response to such again here, and I ended the example with a statement to a fact.

That being said, you still have not addressed the question in regards who among God's chosen ones cast Satan out of Heaven alongside his demons during the Great War, moreover, if we can say what you say about Michael not being able to rebuke Satan in the presence of his Father, let us say they are separate, why not make mention of Zechariah 3:2 as well when that is a verse in regards to pre-existence?

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

hehe, this is some sort of irony. If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Well, that obviously means how WT was never in position to have real truth, all truth, Gods truth,  because if they had the truth from first day in 19th century when CT Russell create this Company, all teachings would be the same today too. Looks like "spark of fire" are lost somewhere, somehow. 

The irony is, we are talking about a belief that predates JWs by centuries upon centuries, and yet here we are, you are among the many who believe this is a doctrine not only professed by JWs, but originates with them.

No not all teachings are the same, JWs are Restorationist, no different from their Apostolic Age counterparts, unless you are willing to prove otherwise, which is neigh impossible, and the relevance will be based among those who attack the faith, which is evident in the past on this forum. 

The spark of which I speak of is the practices of Christians from the Apostolic Age to now, but it is no surprise the mainstream Christians such as yourself do not see anything in regards to those of the Apostolic Age, which is the case with Cos, Defender and Matthew, who have little to no knowledge of such. In the JWs case, as with others, they are far from mainstream Christendom and will do everything in their power to uphold the teachings of the early church, the very reasons why they as a group is marked as Restorationist. Even before Russell, Restorationism was that fire that is decreasing the likes of the mainstream church that teaches something entirely different from the truth, therefore, what I have sate is absolute unbreakable fact.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

is this what you mean with CSE?

CSE members are associated with some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

Ha, no, not quite. Let me enlighten you, the CSE community, of which I posted before, is the Christian Stack Exchange Community, for all are welcome to it, especially those who take biblical theology and history very very seriously. Where in God's name did you find journalism information?

• https://christianity.stackexchange.com
• https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

Pay us a visit, but best beware, we do not take kindly to falsehood and slander that is deemed problematic, you have to be absolutely neutral in what you have to say and what you do say.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Rev 12:5,6 

“And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” 

12:7 " Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back."

"son, shepherd, child" is that Lord Jesus Christ? just borne and in next moment he fight with devil, but not as the King of Kingdom but as  Michael (just Michael without any prefix archangel, angel, prince....)??

You still have not address the question I have asked of you, so I will post it again:

if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

There is only one who is of God who is in a position to have cast out the Devil from Heaven, who is that chosen one? Mind you, I have provided to you parallel verses already.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Don't be silly. "Truth" is not the sole province of any human.