.

johnw74:


The archangel Michael I believe, is the Angel of the Lord.
God gave Revelation to Jesus and Jesus sent it by His Angel to John. Revelation 1:1

Angel of the Lord, not Angel is the Lord.



1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

For the Lord Himself (the Word-Jesus Christ kurios) shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God (God-theos): and the dead in Christ shall rise first

If the Lord kurios is the archangel because he descends with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, then the Lord kurios is also God YAHOVAH theos, because He has the trump of God theos.

He may well be Yahovah, But He is not the archangel.

And Christians know that God and the Word are two persons, One God. John 1:1


Michael and his Angels battles satan and his angels and throws him down to Earth.
Michael is chiel of the angels so there is nothing wrong with calling them his Angels.

The Word of God returns to Earth with all His Saints, and His mighty Angels as well.
The Word of God created the angels so there is nothing wrong with calling them His Angels.

Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Can I ask you this: Jesus' voice and that of any angel at all, which one is more powerful?

From John 5:28, whose voice will call up the dead?

Your point on God's trumpet is not strong because we are talking of vertical comparison, someone taking the authority of a higher power. secondly. a voice is part of the being than is his trumpet.

JMAN05:


Sir, Jude quoted an OT scripture where the divine name appeared. The correct thing should be "YHWH rebuke you". consult cross references.

And Jude and others used kurios when referring to Jesus in the NT.
Post the OT verse for me. If what you say is right, then it is confirming that Jesus Christ is YHVH.

What occurred here is " princes", not archangels. Have you seen where the word "archangels" (emphasis on plural) occurred in the bible before?

There could be more than one princes, but not more than one archangels.

Do a search and you will see that angels are also called princes,
it's really ridiculous to try and imply princes in that verse is not referring to archangles and especially as Michael is one of them.
The word archangel only appears twice in the bible once referring to the voice of the archangel, as it's just one archangel is why it's in the singular, naturally.
The second occasion is when Michael is engaging satan, one archangel, why would the word be anything other than singular.
Does your bible have many instances of the word archangel?

PastorOluT:


I think thats clear enough, U said one of the chief princes according to the scriptures right? So that makes him not the only chief prince, so if he has others with him in that postion then he cant be Jesus cos Jesus is the only one in His position as the Prince of peace and only begotten son of God.

So you are saying that Jesus can't be called chief prince?

PastorOluT:


Thats not the point bro, if u start looking at semantics it wont change their functions. Angels are all ministering spirit for us Hebrews 1:14.

NB Take not of the word 'all' ministering spirit!

Sir, you understand the word "angel" as used in the Scriptures to mean "ministering spirit for us"? did I get you right?

johnw74:


Hebrews 1:5 is plain sense scripture, You don't believe it because it goes against your doctrine.
you should do what PastorOluT said and change your doctrine to suit Bible scripture.

OK, but will u change if you see that your position is wrong sir?

JMAN05:


Can I ask you this: Jesus' voice and that of any angel at all, which one is more powerful?

From John 5:28, whose voice will call up the dead?

Your point on God's trumpet is not strong because we are talking of vertical comparison, someone taking the authority of a higher power. secondly. a voice is part of the being than is his trumpet.

Your replies are weak and nonsensical,
don't believe me,
but you don't believe the scriptures posted which need no explanation.

JMAN05:


OK, but will u change if you see that your position is wrong sir?

I'm not interisted in discussion with jw,
I know you are wrong, and sometimes show your wrongs up for the benefit of others, who may not know better and believe you.

johnw74:


And Jude and others used kurios when referring to Jesus in the NT.
Post the OT verse for me. If what you say is right, then it is confirming that Jesus Christ is YHVH.

No sir, Jesus asked for the rebuke of someone, YHWH. can he ask for the rebuke from himself? please consult a bible with cross reference.

Do a search and you will see that angels are also called princes,
it's really ridiculous to try and imply princes in that verse is not referring to archangles and especially as Michael is one of them.
The word archangel only appears twice in the bible once referring to the voice of the archangel, as it's just one archangel is why it's in the singular, naturally.
The second occasion is when Michael is engaging satan, one archangel, why would the word be anything other than singular.
Does your bible have many instances of the word archangel?

Sir I thought you should know when the Greek grammar says the followed by "archangel". that definite article changes a lot of things sir.

that Daniel says " one of the chief princes". But have you seen "one of the archangels" before?(plural emphasized). There can be more than one chief princes, but not more than one archangels.

Do you posit that all princes are angels?

johnw74:


Your replies are weak and nonsensical,
don't believe me,
but you don't believe the scriptures posted which need no explanation.

The question maybe weak sir, but how will I know if you ignore the question? will it not be good you reply them?

johnw74:


I'm not interisted in discussion with jw,
I know you are wrong, and sometimes show your wrongs up for the benefit of others, who may not know better and believe you.

Sir, will you change if you see your position was wrong?

JMAN05:


No sir, Jesus asked for the rebuke of someone, YHWH. can he ask for the rebuke from himself? please consult a bible with cross reference.

You won't post the verse, was you lying about there being a verse?
Do you want me to believe you without you giving scripture to back up what you say?

Sir I thought you should know when the Greek grammar says the followed by "archangel". that definite article changes a lot of things sir.

that Daniel says " one of the chief princes". But have you seen "one of the archangels" before?(plural emphasized). There can be more than one chief princes, but not more than one archangels.

Do you posit that all princes are angels?

You question what was not said, very untruthful twisting the issues around like that.
Do you have many instances of archangels in your bible?

JMAN05:


Sir, you understand the word "angel" as used in the Scriptures to mean "ministering spirit for us"? did I get you right?

If this is what u could come up with, then I fear ow the conversation can continue. For emphasis sake, their 'function' which talks about who they are.

JMAN05:


Sir, will you change if you see your position was wrong?

Will you go back and read the answer I gave you? instead of being a pharacee in confusing issues.
Because you are wrong and have no real answers, and don't believe the verses provided, you give them other meanings,
don't you?

JMAN05:


So you are saying that Jesus can't be called chief prince?

I don't want to believe someone stole ur moniker, I use to think of u differently prior this.

I have said what i said twice now and u still saying this? Maybe u should read my posts again.

JMAN05 posts are very confused, when you don't know do you then just say anything?

Jud_1:9 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.

JMANO5, Lord here in that verse is kurios which other verses shows is referring to the Word Jesus Christ.
You say that verse has a reality in the OT, and the Lord being YHVH.
Will you post that verse?
And with that being the case as you say, then the two verses would be showing that Jesus Christ is YHVH,
wouldn't they?

johnw74:

JMAN05 posts are very confused, when you don't know do you then just say anything?

I thought am the only one who noticed it. He contradicts himself a lot. Assuming multiple opposing stances on same issues. He probably reads a combination of watchtower articles and other christain commentaries forbidden by the watchtower.

PastorOluT:
So going by ur rationale, [size=14pt]Michael is one of the chief princes,[/size] meaning he is not the only chief prince. So that would negate the theory that [size=14pt]Jesus is the only begotten son if He is Michael?[/size]

I didn't just know how JWs can reconcile those two @bold statements.

You can see how far they can go just to limited Jesus Christ.

JMAN05:
So you are saying that [size=14pt]Jesus can't be called chief prince?[/size]

This is another place you will be lying at the face of the scriptures, he didn't say Jesus can't be called CHIEF PRINCE haba...

The verse says [size=14pt]"ONE[/size] of the chief prince" which means there are many Chief prince and Micheal happened to be ONE of them this negate Jesus being [size=14pt]ONLY begotten[/size] of the Father.

See how you keep twisting someone's statement.

Emusan:


I didn't just know how JWs can reconcile those two @bold statements.

You can see how far they can go just to limited Jesus Christ.

Funny enough, u know the guy never attempted it bt kept saying he doesn't get me as if it wasn't written in English?

Just don't understand ow they try so hard for everything to fit in into their doctrine? Tomorrow they will say He is no longer Michael and still quote scriptures to back it up, changing every season. U know they only came back recently to this believe, they first said He was, later said He wasn't, now back to this. Only God knows what they will say tomorrow.

Emusan:


This is another place you will be lying at the face of the scriptures, he didn't say Jesus can't be called CHIEF PRINCE haba...

The verse says [size=14pt]"ONE[/size] of the chief prince" which means there are many Chief prince and Micheal happened to be ONE of them this negate Jesus being [size=14pt]ONLY begotten[/size] of the Father.

See how you keep twisting someone's statement.

Smile, I was beginning to think the guy has issue with comprehension saying he doesn't get me after 2 explanations, only to realize now he is just dodging the above.

NB I just feel pity for some of them cos they are sincere but sincerely wrong.

I have gone through this thread from the first page and noticed the JWs calling Jesus as same as Archangel Michael is very wrong, the bible made it clear who Michael is; nothing but an Angel of the lord. Saying he is the only archangel is another daring claim which is likely not to be true.

There are about seven archangels known in christian science but the earliest reference to a system of seven archangels as a group appears to be in Enoch I (the Book of Enoch) which is not part of the Jewish Canon but is prevalent in the Judaic tradition, where they are named as Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Remiel and Saraqael. While this book of Enoch today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches,well I am not sure, but it was explicitly quoted in the New Testament ( Jude 1:14-15) in reference to (book of Enoch 27:2-3) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical.

And I belief that there are as many archangels than the seven common ones mentioned, considering the 'Encyclopedia of Angels' that gives more detail of the nine angelic orders in which "Archangels" are second to the lowest rank. I feel this seven angels are the ones mentioned in Rev. 8:2-5
As they are closer to God's throne, tho! They were only referred to as 'angels' in that verse.

Did you know that numerous Bible scholars, yes even some trinitarian scholars agree that based on Bible injunctions, Michael is the same as Jesus?

JMAN05:


No sir,

No, you won't post the verse?
you want me to believe you without Bible reference?

BIBLESPEAKS:
Did you know that numerous Bible scholars, yes even some trinitarian scholars agree that based on Bible injunctions, Michael is the same as Jesus?

Who are the 'numerous bible scholars' that agree?

JMAN05:
Sir, Jude quoted an OT scripture where the divine name appeared. The correct thing should be "YHWH rebuke you". consult cross references.

Since Jude quoted OT where the Divine name appeared, why YHWH is NOT INSERTED EVERYWHERE the NT writers quoted OT where the Divine name appeared in NWT?

What occurred here is " princes", not archangels. Have you seen where the word "archangels" (emphasis on plural) occurred in the bible before?

There could be more than one princes, but not more than one archangels.

If they could be more than ONE PRINCES how Micheal which supposed to be ONLY ARCHANGEL still be among the PRINCES?

Which one higher in rank Archangel or Chief prince?

If Archangel is higher than Chief prince, why would Micheal can be classified as ONE of the Chief princes again?

Which I believe, you don't even know that ARCH means Chief also:

743. arcaggelov archaggelos, ar-khang'-el-os
Search for 743 in KJV

from 757 and 32; a chief angel:--archangel.

See Greek 757 (archo)
See Greek 32 (aggelos)

Come with another lie.

PastorOluT:


Who are the 'numerous bible scholars' that agree?

Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.
-----------------------------------

Back in the early 1800's, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible "manifestly points out the Messiah."　
-----------------------------------
Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg agreed that "Michael is no other than Christ."
-----------------------------------　

Similarly, theologian J. P. Lange, when commenting on Revelation 12:7, wrote: "We take it that Michael . . . is, from the outset, Christ in warlike array against Satan."
-----------------------------------

Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)

Jude :9

“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels.　 The word Michael　 lakym, seems to be compounded of ym mi, who, k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”
----------------------------------

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Revelation

“12:7 And there was war in heaven: 14 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“(14) Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod….”
---------------------------------
John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 7 Chapter 5:

“1b2. Another prophecy in Daniel 12:1-3 respects the second and personal coming of Christ; for he is meant by Michael, who is "as God", as his name signifies, equal to him; the ‘great prince,’ the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers.”

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;”

And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [Bible] Greek scholars”) tells us that this “voice of the archangel” (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ”! - p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
--------------------------------------
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
-------------------------------------
Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
-------------------------------------

John Wesley:

Chapter XII

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13. For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Wesley on Daniel 10:21: "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."
------------------------------------

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758):

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, “Angels”:

“II. When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of the angels after him, Christ, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved from eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for though he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined with him, and then was that literally true that was fulfilled afterwards figuratively.

Rev. xii. ‘When there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.’ ”
------------------------------------

William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:

There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.
-----------------------------------
"The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, [the Word - the Son of God] has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage." —Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. & T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).
----------------------------------
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible

on the words 'Michael' and 'Angel' says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
----------------------------------
Wood's Spiritual Dictionary

teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.
---------------------------------

Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
---------------------------------

Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.
--------------------------------
Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.

----------------------------------------

Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:

"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.
--------------------------------------

And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was

"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.
-------------------------------------

"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982
------------------------------------

"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.
------------------------------------

"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.
------------------------------------

"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------

Just like your Watchtower always misquotes scholars by inserting (...) to deceive you people the site you quoted has done the same.

I won't reply in detail to all your post because I'm still looking for these scholars' work to see what they actually says.

BIBLESPEAKS:

Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

So you agree with Origen here that Christ was DIVINE?

Back in the early 1800's, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible "manifestly points out the Messiah."　
-----------------------------------

And you want us to swallow this without reference...

Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg agreed that "Michael is no other than Christ."
-----------------------------------

And no reference again.

Similarly, theologian J. P. Lange, when commenting on Revelation 12:7, wrote: "We take it that Michael . . . is, from the outset, Christ in warlike array against Satan."
-----------------------------------

As usual (...), what was actual inside this ... that your author omitted?

Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)

Jude :9

“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels.　 The word Michael　 lakym, seems to be compounded of ym mi, who, k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”
----------------------------------

This is the reason I said your Watchtower always misquotes scholars.

Adam first statement that your author omitted is, Verse 9. Yet Michael the archangel] Of this personage many things are spoken in the Jewish writings "Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh says: Wherever Michael is said to appear, the glory of the Divine Majesty is always to be understood." Shemoth Rabba, sec. ii., fol. 104, 3. [size=14pt]So that it seems as if they considered Michael in some sort as we do the Messiah manifested in the flesh.[/size]

So it was opinion of the Jews that Adam is contrasting with the Apocalypse, which stems out from his point "...hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”

Hence, Adam didn't say Jesus Christ is the created Micheal in fact this stems out from his commentary on the same Jude 1:4 "The only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.] monon despothn yeon kai kurion hmwn ihsouv criston aruoumenoi. These words may be translated, Denying the only sovereign God, even our Lord Jesus Christ. But yeon GOD, is omitted by ABC, sixteen others, with Erpen's Arabic, the Coptic, AEthiopic, Armenian, and Vulgate, and by many of the fathers. It is very likely that it was originally inserted as a gloss, to ascertain to whom the title of ton monon despothn, the only Sovereign, belonged; and thus make two persons where only one seems to be intended. The passage I believe belongs solely to Jesus Christ, and may be read thus: Denying the only sovereign Ruler, even our Lord Jesus Christ. [size=14pt]The text is differently arranged in the Complutensian Polyglot, which contains the first edition of the Greek Testament: kai ton monon yeon kai despothn, ton kurion hmwn ihsoun criston arnoumenoi. Denying the only God and Sovereign, our Lord Jesus Christ.[/size] This is a very remarkable position of the words, and doubtless existed in some of the MSS. from which these editors copied. The Simonians, Nicolaitans, and Gnostics, denied God to be the creator of the world; and Simon is said to have proclaimed himself as FATHER to the Samaritans, as SON to the Jews, and as the HOLY GHOST to all other nations. All such most obviously denied both Father, Son, and Spirit."

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;”

And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [Bible] Greek scholars”) tells us that this “voice of the archangel” (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ”! - p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
--------------------------------------
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
-------------------------------------
Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
-------------------------------------

Looking for the books

John Wesley:

Chapter XII
A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13. For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. [size=14pt]The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.[/size]

Wesley on Daniel 10:21: "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."

These are just a contrasting statement on personage of Micheal with that of Christ he didn't say Michael is Christ. This is more evident when you read his comment on Jude where he suppose to affirm Michael as Jesus but nothing like that happened;
V. 9. Yet Michael-It does not appear whether St. Jude learned this by any revelation or from ancient tradition. It suffices, that these things were not only true, but acknowledged as such by them to whom he wrote.

The archangel-This word occurs but once more in the sacred writings, 1Th 4:16. So that whether there be one archangel only, or more, it is not possible for us to determine.

When he disputed with the devil-At what time we know not.

Concerning the body of Moses-Possibly the devil would have discovered the place where it was buried, which God for wise reasons had concealed.

Durst not bring even against him a railing accusation-Though so far beneath him in every respect. But simply said, (so great was his modesty!)

The Lord rebuke thee-I leave thee to the Judge of all.

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758):

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, “Angels”:

“II. When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of the angels after him, Christ, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace [size=14pt]the elect angels[/size] from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved from eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. [size=14pt]Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels,[/size] for though he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. [size=14pt]The elect angels joined with him (Christ), the glorious Michael, as their captain,[/size] while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined with him, [size=14pt]and then was that literally true that was fulfilled afterwards figuratively.[/size] (Bold, color & bracket-mine)

Rev. xii. ‘When there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.’ ”
------------------------------------

Can you see how your author has misunderstood this statement?
1. Christ is not part of the elect Angels
2. Michael was part of the elect Angels
I think the point Edwards trying to bring out here is the fact that ""And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb..."
Micheal was never referred to as LAMB.

"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982
------------------------------------

"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.
------------------------------------

"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.
------------------------------------

"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------

Please I never see where any one said the Angel of the Lord is Michael here, can you show us?


Finally, if truly this people teaches that Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael without changing in their teaching;
1. why would JWs change the teaching of Jesus being Micheal FIVE times before they finally come to conclusion that Jesus is Michael?
2.Is it God who is inspiring all these changes?
3. What have JWs taught that have not been talked about by anybody before YET they are still claiming INSPIRATION for their work?

johnw74:


Will you go back and read the answer I gave you? instead of being a pharacee in confusing issues.
Because you are wrong and have no real answers, and don't believe the verses provided, you give them other meanings,
don't you?

Oga, can you change if your position is wrong? If you cant, no need of discussing with you. So I need answer to that if you dont mind.

PastorOluT:


If this is what u could come up with, then I fear ow the conversation can continue. For emphasis sake, their 'function' which talks about who they are.

Pls if i dont get you right, clearly point out what the word "angel" means as used in the bible. Or are you saying that that they are ministers for us which is also the function they perform? Is the latter ur point?

PastorOluT:



I don't want to believe someone stole ur moniker, I use to think of u differently prior this.

I have said what i said twice now and u still saying this? Maybe u should read my posts again.

I dont get the first sentence.

2. Sir, if you believe that Jesus is a chief prince, and we ve seen that their are more than one chief princes, your point below becomes irrelevant.

I think thats clear enough, U said one of the chief princes according to the scriptures right? So that makes him not the only chief prince, so if he has others with him in that position then he cant be Jesus cos Jesus is the only one in His position as the Prince of peace and only begotten son of God.

However, From the point you have above ^^, it implies that you dont believe Jesus to be a chief prince. Sir, do you still maintain this position?

Guess you see where am coming from?