BREAKING NEWS!

Given Isaiah prophesies about the Son as a "prince of peace" in Isaiah 9:6, and Michael in Daniel is only ever referred to as a "prince" by the same Hebrew denotation śar, it seems impossible to mandate Michael as a strictly angelic being. It looks like the JW insistence on Michael as an "angel" is a deference to later (2nd century BC) Jewish theology rather than anything mandated by the Hebrew word for "prince." Even God himself is referred to as a prince in Dan 8:11, (prince of the host). But how is "prince of the host" different from the connotations of the NT word "archangel" (ruler of angels)? If later Jewish angel idolatry was the wrong path, which Christ corrected, what does that say about JW?
Bible shows both Jesus and Michael leading Gods angels. There is only 1 chief of the angels=Michael who is Jesus. for sure This is Jesus' voice=1Thess 4:16-It is Jesus who is standing up for Gods chosen as Gods appointed king-Dan 12:1
 
Bible shows both Jesus and Michael leading Gods angels. There is only 1 chief of the angels=Michael who is Jesus. for sure This is Jesus' voice=1Thess 4:16-It is Jesus who is standing up for Gods chosen as Gods appointed king-Dan 12:1
Excluding the Catholic church and its daughter churches, the view that Michael is Jesus Christ is affirmed by some puritain authors and Seventh Day Adventists. In his commentary on Jude 9 John Gill says, "'Yet Michael the archangel ...' By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ ..."[66]

Many Protestant Reformers identified Michael with Christ in their writings including the following:
  1. Martin Luther[67] Hengstenberg,[68] Andrew Willet[69] Herman Witsius[70] Dr. W. L. Alexander [in Kitto], Prof. Douglas [in Fairbairn][71] Jacobus Ode,[72] Campegius Vitringa,[73]Philip Melanchthon,[74] Hugh Broughton,[75] Franciscus Junius,[76] Hävernick[77] Amandus Polanus,[78] Johannes Oecolampadius[79]Bishop Samuel Horsely,[80] William Kincaid[81] John (Jean) Calvin[82] Isaac Watts,[83] John Brown's Dictionary,[84] James Wood's Spiritual Dictionary[85]

In the 19th century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon stated that Jesus is "the true Michael"[86] and "the only Archangel".[87]
[source]

Only the Mormons differ considerably, according to their bizarre creed where they make "Elohim" higher that YHWH.

So quite a lot of support for the theory I have just put forward that Michael can be seen not as an angel, but merely as an OT prophetic name for the future Jesus / the existing Logos, and who is not an angel. Spurgeon was an authority on the Old Testament, so his views also carry authority.
 
Excluding the Catholic church and its daughter churches, the view that Michael is Jesus Christ is affirmed by some puritain authors and Seventh Day Adventists. In his commentary on Jude 9 John Gill says, "'Yet Michael the archangel ...' By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ ..."[66]

Many Protestant Reformers identified Michael with Christ in their writings including the following:
  1. Martin Luther[67] Hengstenberg,[68] Andrew Willet[69] Herman Witsius[70] Dr. W. L. Alexander [in Kitto], Prof. Douglas [in Fairbairn][71] Jacobus Ode,[72] Campegius Vitringa,[73]Philip Melanchthon,[74] Hugh Broughton,[75] Franciscus Junius,[76] Hävernick[77] Amandus Polanus,[78] Johannes Oecolampadius[79]Bishop Samuel Horsely,[80] William Kincaid[81] John (Jean) Calvin[82] Isaac Watts,[83] John Brown's Dictionary,[84] James Wood's Spiritual Dictionary[85]

In the 19th century, Charles Haddon Spurgeon stated that Jesus is "the true Michael"[86] and "the only Archangel".[87]
[source]

Only the Mormons differ considerably, according to their bizarre creed where they make "Elohim" higher that YHWH.

So quite a lot of support for the theory I have just put forward that Michael can be seen not as an angel, but merely as an OT prophetic name for the future Jesus / the existing Logos, and who is not an angel. Spurgeon was an authority on the Old Testament, so his views also carry authority.
He is created= The FIRSTBORN of all creation.
Elohim=The supreme one is YHVH(Jehovah)
 
He is created= The FIRSTBORN of all creation.
Non sequitur. Jesus the man was born, certainly. But just because he was born, doesn't mean to say that he didn't pre-exist in another jurisdiction, i.e. heaven. How could he not exist eternally when God had granted him eternal life "in himself"? Either he had it or he didn't, and he said he had it. So he must have had it outside of creation.

The term firstborn is obviously from the OT and prophetic. It signifies "heir" or "ruler." In this NT context, it comes from the prophecy Psalm 89:27, which prophesies that Jesus is made heir of all things.

What it means is that the Son is heir to creation, or made ruler over all creation. There is nothing here that suggests Jesus is created.

Elohim=The supreme one is YHVH(Jehovah)
Elohim could apply to both men with the word of God, and also God.

John 10:34-36 "Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are Elohim? 35 If he called them Elohim to whom the word of Elohim came— and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of Elohim?"
 
Non sequitur. Jesus the man was born, certainly. But just because he was born, doesn't mean to say that he didn't pre-exist in another jurisdiction, i.e. heaven. How could he not exist eternally when God had granted him eternal life "in himself"? Either he had it or he didn't, and he said he had it. So he must have had it outside of creation.

The term firstborn is obviously from the OT and prophetic. It signifies "heir" or "ruler." In this NT context, it comes from the prophecy Psalm 89:27, which prophesies that Jesus is made heir of all things.

What it means is that the Son is heir to creation, or made ruler over all creation. There is nothing here that suggests Jesus is created.


Elohim could apply to both men with the word of God, and also God.

John 10:34-36 "Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are Elohim? 35 If he called them Elohim to whom the word of Elohim came— and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of Elohim?"
Ps 89:26 teaches the Father is Jesus' God---God does not have a God. created beings have a God. This is where your lack of understanding is.
 
Ps 89:26 teaches the Father is Jesus' God---God does not have a God. created beings have a God. This is where your lack of understanding is.
Jesus crossed the great divide between heaven and earth. On earth he had a God, "God." In heaven he is "of God", i.e. of the Father, where he exercises the Father's power: 1 Cor 1:24 "but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
 
Jesus crossed the great divide between heaven and earth. On earth he had a God, "God." In heaven he is "of God", i.e. of the Father, where he exercises the Father's power: 1 Cor 1:24 "but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
Rev 3:12 sitting at Gods right hand-Jesus stresses 4 x in a single paragraph that he has a God.
 
Rev 3:12 sitting at Gods right hand-Jesus stresses 4 x in a single paragraph that he has a God.
Just so. But the problem with JWs is that they make Jesus to be "of creation" i.e. created, raher than "of God" and outside of creation. Jesus can still have a God and be outside of creation, i.e. not part of creation. It is the idea that Jesus is created, even a part of creation, that is so repellant to Christians. For Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I am."
 
Just so. But the problem with JWs is that they make Jesus to be "of creation" i.e. created, raher than "of God" and outside of creation. Jesus can still have a God and be outside of creation, i.e. not part of creation. It is the idea that Jesus is created, even a part of creation, that is so repellant to Christians. For Jesus said "Before Abraham was born, I am."
Yes he answered the pharisees honestly, he lived before Abraham= i am. There is no i am that i am in the Hebrew written OT. translating error to mislead. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that Hebrew statement. Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation--All creation occurred at the beginning, God rested. Your teachers( scholars) twist it to fit their false reasonings. You are being mislead.
 
Yes he answered the pharisees honestly, he lived before Abraham= i am. There is no i am that i am in the Hebrew written OT. translating error to mislead.
I don't believe the difference is significant when the contextual nuances are taken into account. The OT is stressing God is a continuous and future revelation of himself, whereas Jesus, the revealer of God, is now looking backwards into the past as revealing God to Abraham.

I will be what i will be is the correct translation of that Hebrew statement. Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation--All creation occurred at the beginning, God rested. Your teachers( scholars) twist it to fit their false reasonings. You are being mislead.
No, you've got the wrong interpretation here. "Jesus" did not exist at the beginning. The Logos existed at the beginning in heaven. When the bible refers to "Jesus" it refers to the man Jesus, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Here it is the man Jesus who is the firstborn over all creation: i.e. he who was born, was made ruler over all creation, which as Jesus said, was the same position he occupied as the Logos, Rev 3:14, John 6:62
 
I don't believe the difference is significant when the contextual nuances are taken into account. The OT is stressing God is a continuous and future revelation of himself, whereas Jesus, the revealer of God, is now looking backwards into the past as revealing God to Abraham.


No, you've got the wrong interpretation here. "Jesus" did not exist at the beginning. The Logos existed at the beginning in heaven. When the bible refers to "Jesus" it refers to the man Jesus, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Here it is the man Jesus who is the firstborn over all creation: i.e. he who was born, was made ruler over all creation, which as Jesus said, was the same position he occupied as the Logos, Rev 3:14, John 6:62
He was created-first and last direct, then all other things created through him. That is the reality of The FIRSTBORN of all creation.
 
He was created-first and last direct, then all other things created through him. That is the reality of The FIRSTBORN of all creation.
No, this is a plain distortion of the text.

Firstborn can only infer a son, i.e. Jesus the man. It cannot infer the Logos. No "Spirit" can be "firstborn". "Over all creation" refers to his eternal subsistence as governor or ruler.
 
No, this is a plain distortion of the text.

Firstborn can only infer a son, i.e. Jesus the man. It cannot infer the Logos. No "Spirit" can be "firstborn". "Over all creation" refers to his eternal subsistence as governor or ruler.
John 5:30--Jesus can do 0 of his own. Why? Because he is not God, he has a God because he is a created being=Michael.
 
John 5:30--Jesus can do 0 of his own. Why? Because he is not God, he has a God because he is a created being=Michael.
Nothing in the bible says Jesus was created. Jn 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word....." "Michael" is an OT irrelevance: God being the God of hosts, doesn't mean God is created. Jesus being the ruler of angels doesn't mean Jesus is created.
 
Nothing in the bible says Jesus was created. Jn 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word....." "Michael" is an OT irrelevance: God being the God of hosts, doesn't mean God is created. Jesus being the ruler of angels doesn't mean Jesus is created.
God always was=Jehovah a single being God=the Abrahamic God. Jesus is not Jehovah.
 
God always was=Jehovah a single being God=the Abrahamic God. Jesus is not Jehovah.
I know it''s hard to grasp, but creation, i.e. what exists physically, is a time-space entity at is core, based on complex mathematics. Creation had a beginning. The Logos exists outside of this dimension in the spiritual sphere. The Logos is no part of the creation of God, because he dwells with God on the throne of God and possesses the form of God (Phil 2:6). Jesus said "I came from God." The bible makes no allusion to what happened before creation began, except to say that the Logos was before creation (Jn 1:1) acting as God's regent (as it were).

There is nothing to suggest that God isn't complex. There is nothing to say that he who creates life cannot himself have multiple life forms, but as to "form of God" there is but one form of God into which category the Logos falls. To pretend that God is a "single being" is meaningless. Rather God exercises a unitary monarchy of God (Deut 6:4). God is God. God is not anything but God. "God was the Word" in Jn 1:1c, means that the Logos is in that special category that nothing else belongs in, except God himself.

The YHWH name infers both God in person and the hierarchy of heaven in action. So when the angels of God introduce themselves in the OT (e.g. before Moses in the burning bush), they carried the name of YHWH. The Logos is also hidden behind the YHWH name in the OT where the actions of God are concerned, including the words of God. So when it says "God spoke", the Logos is inferred.

Finally the Logos and God are one, indivisible for all intents and purposes. The Arian enterprise that posits the Logos as created, and therefore fundamentally not "one with the Father", is a bad solution to the architecture of God. You're not paying attention to what Jesus actually said. Jesus cannot be separated from God by humankind. He can only be distinguished.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top