|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Jul 28, 2014 19:58:39 GMT 12
Was the pre-incarnate Jesus, and Michael the archangel, one and the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by digger on Jul 28, 2014 23:27:39 GMT 12
Is it plausible or possible that this Michael can be Jesus? No, not a created being, but God in his fullest séance, lets look at Isaiah 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. I ask you who is this Prince of Peace but Jesus right, the Hebrew cross reference is 8269 in the strong’s concordance for prince, check it out, now go to Daniel 10:21 where it states …and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. The same 8269 refrence and when you go there it will refrence Sar, and in the titles there you will find lord or the name for God! So it is proper exegesis to believe one can apply the lord or God to the verse Michael your prince or your God!
|
|
|
|
Post by digger on Jul 28, 2014 23:40:42 GMT 12
come on someone please show me where, or how my study is wrong!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Jul 29, 2014 0:03:39 GMT 12
Hi Digger (Randy?  ) Thank you for sharing that, I hadn't connected the Isaiah reference to the "Prince of Peace" with the passage "Michael YOUR prince" in Daniel, but that does makes sense. Perhaps it would be worthwhile pointing out to folk that there is no question that the pre-incarnate Jesus was God in the fullest sense. Some seem to think that by identifying Michael as Jesus, it is saying that Jesus was only an angel. That is not the case, as the Bible is clear that Jesus was God. "In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) , and the Word was with God (the Father) , and the Word was God (the Son) ." - John 1:1"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (i.e. Jesus) was manifest in the flesh" - 1 Timothy 3:16Many testified who Jesus was... "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." - John 20:28
"Truly this was the Son of God." - Matthew 27:54
"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:" - Hebrews 1:7,8
The question is, was one of the titles of Jesus before He came to earth "Michael", chief of the angels (i.e. archangel)?
Yes, that would fit the description we find regarding Michael. Does that make Jesus less than God? Not at all, no more than Jesus being born on earth as a man, becoming the new Adam, meant that He was not God. Is Jesus as a man still God? Yes, of course. So why would Jesus, by taking the title of Michael and the position as leader for the angels, mean He wasn't God?
I don't understand why some people have an issue, unless it be that they haven't joined the dots.
|
|
|
|
Post by pastordan on Jul 30, 2014 13:40:59 GMT 12
Was the pre-incarnate Jesus, and Michael the archangel, one and the same?
One clue is when you see the phrase, "the Angel of the Lord." The Hebrew there always includes the tetragrammaton, the Hebrew theonym denoting the Name of God. It ALWAYS refers to God. An example would be Exodus 3:2. Michael is NEVER mentioned with a connection to any verbage that connects him as God in any way shape or form.
Digger, you mentioned Isaiah 9:6 and tried to connect a Messianic prophecy with the declaration of Michael as Jesus through the word "prince." You have taken that word badly out of context.
Look at Genesis 23:5-6, "The Hittites answered Abraham, “Hear us, my lord; you are a prince of God among us." Using your exegesis, Abraham must be the pre-incarnate Christ as well.
Again, here is the TRUTH of Scripture: Michael is an angel - evidently a chief among the ranks of angels, but he is created. Jesus is God. Jesus created Michael. Michael bows at the name of Jesus. That is EXACTLY what the Word of God affirms. |
|
|
|
Post by pastordan on Jul 31, 2014 8:17:05 GMT 12
Hello.....? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Aug 1, 2014 1:30:29 GMT 12
Daniel, please have a VERY careful look at EXACTLY what the Bible says:
Nowhere do we find any scripture that says Michael was created, or that Michael bows at the feet of Jesus. In the Old Testament (i.e. Hebrew), Michael is never called a 'malach'. To properly learn about Michael, we can't use a connection that isn't there in the Bible.
Rather Michael is specifically referred to as 'Prince' [Heb. 'sar' H8269], a term which is translated in other places as 'captain', 'chief', 'ruler', 'governor', 'principal', 'master', 'general' etc. According to Strongs this means "a head person (of any rank or class)".
Daniel 10:21 says Michael is called Daniel's Prince [same word Heb. 'sar' H8269], meaning He is Daniel's Master, or Daniel's Ruler, or Daniel's Principal. Since there is no record in the Bible of any prior interaction between Daniel and Michael, that seems a little inexplicable. Did Daniel have someone as his master or ruler without his knowledge? That doesn't make sense, until it is understood that Michael is really another name for Jesus.
Remember, regular angels are not captains/masters/chiefs of human beings. In Revelation 19:10 and 22:9, an angel tells John specifically that he is John's "fellowservant", and not to fall at his feet to worship him.
So who was this Prince Michael? This same word 'Prince' [Heb. 'sar' H8269] refers to Jesus in Isa 9:6, a scripture that Daniel would have been familiar with.
By the way, the passage you mentioned where Abraham is called a 'prince' [H5387], is different word in Hebrew, so that connection is not there.
Having said all that, please understand that the connection between Jesus and Michael does not rest on the word 'prince'. Rather it's about who Michael is, and what he does. The name Michael signifies, "He who is like God". Who is like God? Jesus said "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).
Michael is never referred to simply as an angel. He is called "THE ARCHangel" i.e. the head of the angels (Jude 1:9, Rev 12:7).
Is Jesus head of the angels? Yes, "...the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels" (2 Thess 1:7). "all the angels of God worship him." (Heb 1:6).
When Jesus shouts, it's the archangel's voice: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel" (1 Thess 4:16)
The voice that raises the dead is "the voice of the archangel" (1 Thess 4:16). Who's voice raises the dead? Again, it's Jesus.
"...the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25)
Don't forget that the gift of eternal life is only through Christ, "In him was life" (John 1:4). It's only Jesus that has power to give eternal life, not a mere angel. To say that Michael is merely a created angel, and yet has the power to give life, is to take away from the ministry of Jesus, because Jesus said "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:" (John 11:25), and "every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)
Finally, you might say, 'But in Daniel 10:13 it says Michael is only "one of the chief princes". That cannot be Christ if he is only ONE of many'.
As you yourself said, studying the Hebrew can help. The word translated as "ONE" in that passage, [Heb. 'echad', H259] means FIRST, or NUMBER ONE.
So the passage could properly be translated "Michael, FIRST of the chief princes", or "Michael, NUMBER ONE of the chief princes".
|
|
|
|
Post by digger 1 on Aug 1, 2014 14:55:06 GMT 12
Amen! Ross your reply is very logical and well stated!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Aug 1, 2014 23:22:42 GMT 12
Thank you Randy  |
|
|
|
Post by randy on Aug 2, 2014 8:00:29 GMT 12
but Ross the problem goes deeper, this hole study is not just weather you can make a good argument and its understandable and even correct in the Hebrew, but as you know it has to involve the will the heart and most of all the holy spirit, so I am praying as we all need to be doing that God`s will can get through to our stubborn hearts!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Aug 2, 2014 15:20:39 GMT 12
Yes, that's a very good point Randy. Jesus mentioned this principle too, that a prerequisite to correctly understanding doctrine is to be willing to "do his will" (John 7:17). The more we fully surrender our lives to Christ, the greater the measure that God can give us of the Holy Spirit, and we need the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible because the Holy Spirit inspired the Word.
So followers of Jesus, should be like the Bereans... "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." - Acts 17:11
|
|
|
|
Post by randy on Aug 3, 2014 4:18:32 GMT 12
say Ross did I use the concordance wrong in my first reply? where it states the different titles it dose say in my concordance the title lord and since that is the name for God why can not that be a proper name for MICHAEL?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Aug 3, 2014 22:48:15 GMT 12
Hi Randy, no, I don't think you used the concordance wrong. It can sometimes be very helpful to see if the words match by checking in the original language. Obviously that's not the only evidence, but joining dots through the use of the same words can reveal important clues.
|
|
|
|
Post by randy on Aug 4, 2014 2:10:22 GMT 12
thanks Ross I have not gone to any seminary or school to learn the best way to us the concordance so I was just wondering!
|
|
|
|
Post by randy on Aug 5, 2014 3:22:29 GMT 12
Was the pre-incarnate Jesus, and Michael the archangel, one and the same? Say Ross it seams as though Daniel has agreed with your position, so maybe we need him to decide if he is ready to move on to another topic? I am sure there is lots we can share with him if he is interested? tomorrow I will be heading back to our farm for just a couple of days but then I will be back to put my two sense in. God Bless
|
|
|
|
Post by Doubtful on Aug 5, 2014 11:28:00 GMT 12
I doubt he has agreed. To say that is to put words in his mouth. Not very becoming...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Aug 5, 2014 15:30:00 GMT 12
Say Ross it seams as though Daniel has agreed with your position, so maybe we need him to decide if he is ready to move on to another topic? I am sure there is lots we can share with him if he is interested? tomorrow I will be heading back to our farm for just a couple of days but then I will be back to put my two sense in. God Bless
Hi Randy, I just chatted with Daniel on Facebook, and he is quite busy at the moment (we can all relate to that ), and he intends to respond again soon. Certainly no pressure from me. I appreciate being able to dialogue on Biblical topics in a way where we can put thought into what we say, as opposed to a live debate, because truth is not about debating skills, rather what the Word of God says most clearly, and hearing His still, small voice: " Meditate upon these things" - 1 Timothy 4:15 |
|
|
|
Post by digger on Aug 8, 2014 17:36:38 GMT 12
I doubt he has agreed. To say that is to put words in his mouth. Not very becoming... sorry folks since Pastordan said he liked Ross`es article I took it meaning he agreed with it, but maybe I was wrong, no harm intended! OK Doubtful I have to apologize again, my character needs some molding from the good Shepard, I really do want to discuss the bible in a way that can benefit all of us so! please help us all to discuss God`s word to His glory thanks! chow |
|
|
|
Post by Ross Patterson on Aug 24, 2014 10:53:12 GMT 12
Hi Randy, just spoke with Daniel, and he said, "I'm not able to engage in debates for awhile. I need to focus my energy and time where it will be most productive". So maybe we can begin another topic. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by digger on Aug 24, 2014 11:04:18 GMT 12
Hi Randy, just spoke with Daniel, and he said, "I'm not able to engage in debates for awhile. I need to focus my energy and time where it will be most productive". So maybe we can begin another topic. What do you think? HI Ross, Yes, that sounds like a good idea, what say we discuss the topic of the importance of sound doctrine! & what difference it makes! folks just might like this discussion. what say you? |
|
) Thank you for sharing that, I hadn't connected the Isaiah reference to the "Prince of Peace" with the passage "Michael YOUR prince" in Daniel, but that does makes sense.
