Why I know that the archangel Michael is not Jesus... (froma biblical discussion last night)

[singedwingangel]

I was recently exposed to a theory offered by a church calling itself "universalism" that absolutely floored me. Apparently they believe that the archangel Michael was really Jesus. The thing that scared me the most about this was they are using biblical text to purportedly prove their claim.their practice is the danger that falls within the spectrum of "religious" doctrine. True Christianity is not within the laws or texts of man-made doctrines and theology but in the very behavior and attitudes of the God we serve, the Christ we know on a personal level. But this teaching sent me into a deep discovery into where they get this idea and how they "prove" it's truth. 

I was directed  to a gentleman who apparently has a radio ministry. One of his "sermons" discusses the "proof" of this theory. But what floored me was a "sermon" less then 2 weeks later attesting to the fact that Jesus was NOT a created being. Now created in biblical context means made by God, without parent as such. So after researching the basis for this "belief" I was even more floored with how they could even begin to relate the two. To take a text that has been translated from another language, that we know to have more depth then the English language, and base a belief off of it is absolutely ridiculousness. As ridiculous as taking one line of one chapter out of context to represent this belief as the "proof" that one is right.

However, I would like to show why the verses they use are not nor have they ever been any form of proof that the archangel Michael was Jesus. First we have to realize that we as humans are of greater rank then even the archangels. Arch angels or any angels are not granted salvation.For God to take an archangel and put him into human form to become the Savior of the world would also mean he would have to allow Satan and his army of fallen angels the gift of salvation. Not even gonna happen.. Also we are told that the name of Jesus is the name above every name. If it is above every name then it would be above the name of any archangel including Michael, why on earth would Jesus step up to the greater name only to regain it once he was resurrected and ascended into heaven. That would be like stepping down from his rightful inheritance. It makes no sense at all.

The biblical texts they use are as follows:

Daniel 10:13

But the prince of Persia withstood me, one and 20 days, but lo, Michael, one of the chief princes came to help me ...

Daniel 10:20-21

Then he said knowest thou wherefore I came unto thee and now I will return to fight with the prince of Persia, and when I am gone forth, lo the prince of Grecia shall come.

But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth, and therein none that holdeth with me in these things , but Michael your prince.

Jude 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"

I Thessalonians 4:16-18

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....

Revelation 19: 11-16

Revelation 12: 7, 10, 12

Although neither of these passages name Michael at all simply an archangel they justify the connection simply off that term.

Let's go to Daniel first:

This verse clearly tells us that Michael is chief of princes. Meaning he is one of many on a similar level. He is not the ONLY archangel. but we know that Jesus is described as the ONLY begotten son of God, the KING of KINGS, why would he go from prince to king, from one to many and then return to the placement of a prince if he was given the ultimate authority as Jesus the Christ?? It makes no sense to even remotely denote that this passage tells us that Michael was Christ. It clearly shows he was NOT Jesus at any point.

Daniel 10:20-21

Prior to these particular verses we see that something appears to Daniel having the form of man. IF we bring that verse into this arugument it also shows that it was not Jesus as Michael that appeared to him. It does not even say that it was Michael it simply calls him an archangel a prince. In every instance that Jesus is referred to in manly form he is described as one having the appearance of the SON of man. Not as a man. This verse also reminds us once again that this form is one of many, negating the claim it was a manifestation of Jesus prior to his birth. For we know that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son.. You cannot be both one of many and ONLY, you either are or you aren't and this clearly shows us that Michael is NOT Jesus.

Jude vs 9

In this verse we see Michael contending with teh devil over the body of Moses. They argue that he overcame the devil because he was Jesus, who after his ascension reclaimed his place as an archangel. Again why would one renounce a name above every name and step DOWN in authority. If he had been Jesus then the rebuke would have been worded differently, "I rebuke thee" not "the Lord rebuke thee" If you ARE the true son of God you have no need to call on a name greater then your own.

I Thess. 4:16-18

The second coming of Christ is twisted to insinuate that he returns using the voice of an archangel. It never denotes which archangel. However when we think about a royal arrival what happens before they come in. They are lead in by pomp and circumstance, trumpets and fanfare and a royal announcer that proclaims their rank and name. Jesus was not speaking in Michael's or any other angles voice. Jesus comes in with his royal entourage if you will, his announcement committee. Trust me his second coming is not going to be the quiet event of his birth. There will be no doubt as to who is breaking the eastern sky.

The Revelation passages never mention the name of the archangel being referred to. However their belief is because the one archangel tells the 24 elders to worship and bow they believe it is Michael. However just as the mis interpretation of the verses in Thessolonians, this falls under the same theory. The royal court is announcing the presence of the King, Jesus, not Michael.

I am sure that there are many other arguments I can make based on personal beliefs, faith, yadda yadda. But the entire ability of a religious doctrine to base their beliefs solely on the English translation is a dangerous practice. It is the very religious doctrinology that Jesus came to preach and teach AGAINST.

To my sisters in the faith, be careful what you hear and fall for. Weigh everything against the word of God using the original verbiage and translation. Pray without ceasing for wisdom, for the wisdom of God comes only through study and dedication. If it were so easy to read it once and get it then we would not have had a need for a Savior, we would have gotten it right the first time..

[carpetsharksmom]

Jul. 7, 2009 at 7:36 PM

sounds like the Jehovah's witnesses. they believe the same thing..

[KristiS11384]

Jul. 7, 2009 at 7:46 PM

I had never heard of the Jesus= MIchael (archangel) before now. Though I find this article interesting for other reasons. Those reasons being that it shows how two differnent people can interpret the exact same passages differently.

[singedwingangel]

Jul. 7, 2009 at 8:10 PM

neither had I Kristi. Which is why it sent me into major biblical study including the original hebrew text which of course we both know carried much more meaning then english does..

(Original Poster)

[Mama0f3grlz]

Jul. 7, 2009 at 8:36 PM

I knew you'd be the right place to go Angel. DH just tries to bonk people on the head. lol   I had heard some crazy things going up Mormon but this was certainly new to me. For one thing, I can't get past the name difference. Jesus would be the only person that was given two names and it wasn't specifically said that God gave this person a new name. Everyone else, it said God gave this person a new name. The second thing is the difference in Jude and Mark 4. In Jude, Michael would not even dare to bring a dispute against Satan. In Mark 4, Jesus does not hesitate to rebuke Satan and tell him to hit the road. And then I look at Hebrews 1 which clearly outlines the differences between the angels and the Son. It says His name is better, that He is superior, that He is God's son. I like to consider myself open-minded when it comes to the God's word and I'm always willing to learn something new that maybe I didn't catch before but I don't want to entertain things that I know are not true and can be easily disproven, in my eyes anyway. The angels were created beings, and Jesus was not a created being. A created being cannot create themself. I just feel like people bring up these wild conspiracy theories from the bible and they don't really have anything to do with having faith in Jesus. It just makes me not want to talk to anyone about religion anymore. lol

[faithhopeclan2]

Jul. 7, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Thank you so much for sharing this, There will be so many lost and that's just how Satan operates, He comes to kill, steal and destroy, We all need to be on guard, and test everything.