Jesus is Michael the Archangel

CON will demonstrate that PRO”s argument concerning the equality of Michael the archangel and Jesus does not hold. Rebuttals PRO P1 - Angel means "messenger", not necessarily a created winged seraphim, cherubim etc. PRO begins by compounding the definitions of “arch”, “angel”, and “Michael”. PRO then asserts the compound is equal with Jesus. In essence, since “arch” = chief “angel” = messenger and “Michael” = who is like God Then, “Michael the archangel” = chief messenger who is like God = Jesus. PRO’s logic dictates that “Jesus” may be substituted by any admirable assumption. Furthermore, a host of problems arise a result: What may be concluded about the angel Gabriel whose name means “mighty like God”? Recall that Jesus is called the mighty God in Isa.9:6. May we conclude then, that Gabriel is also Jesus? Moreover, by extension, are the names Michael, Gabriel and Jesus interchangeable? Also, consider Micah whose name means ”who is like Jehovah?” The names don’t give a parallel but beg a question. Who is like God? Obviously no one. If Jesus is Michael then who are the other angels? PRO P2- Jacob was redeemed by an angel. PRO’s implication here is based on the passage from Genesis where an “angel of the Lord” appears before Jacob. PRO attempts to create an equality between the “angel of the Lord” and God fully revealed. However, PRO’s claim can only reflect the assumption that the “angel of the Lord” may be identified as “Michael the archangel” because Genesis does not specify the name (identity) of the angel. Recall that PRO must prove the much stronger proposal that Michael the archangel is Jesus, not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God. PRO P3 - God is the angel in the burning bush. PRO’s implication here is based on Exodus 3:2-4 where an “angel of the Lord” appears before Moses. PRO attempts to create an equality between the “angel of the Lord” and God fully revealed. However, PRO’s claim can only reflect the assumption that the “angel of the Lord” may be identified as “Michael the archangel” because Exodus 3:2-4 does not specify the name (identity) of the angel. Recall that PRO must prove the much stronger proposal that Michael the archangel is Jesus, not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God. PRO P4 - “The Lord rebuke thee” PRO relies on the assumption that references to titles/names inside separate passages can be interchanged at will, pending some interesting assumed similarities. Consider Zechariah 3:1-2, “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan!’”. Also consider 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" PRO contends that “the LORD rebuke you” connects the passages such that the “angel of the LORD” in the first passage, is “Michael the archangel” in the second passage, implying further that two passages are referencing the same incident, or the same type of incident. But the objections to either case are obvious: (1) The only similarity between the two passages is the expression, “the LORD rebuke you.” (2) The name “Michael” does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah. (3) There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” in Zechariah, and no allusion to it whatever. Moreover, Jude 9 is clear in displaying Michael’s limited ability, Hence, “The LORD rebuke thee” evidences the LORD’s superiority over Michael the archangel. Also, notice how peter differentiates between angels and the Lord, "Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord (2 Peter 2:11). That is, “an archangel” is still an angel, though he is one of higher rank as surely as an archbishop is still a bishop, though he is one of higher rank. Therefore, according to 2 Peter 2:11, Michael must be a wholly separate being from the Lord, Jesus. Finally, In stark contrast to Jude 9, Jesus repeatedly rebuked Satan. (Matt. 17:18, Mark 9:25, etc.) demonstrating the authority that Michael does not possess. PRO P5 - Michael the Prince PRO references the book of Daniel to support the claim that “the prince”, “your prince” and “great prince” not only refers to Michael the archangel but to Jesus since PRO assumes that “There is no prince greater than Jesus”. Michael the archangel is mentioned only five times in the Bible (Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7), and yet none of these passages indicate that he is to be equated with the preincarnate Christ, nor with the ascended Jesus. Daniel 10:13 says "Michael, one of the chief princes", Daniel 10:21 says, "Michael your prince." Daniel 12:1 says, "Michael the great prince." Notice that Michael is just "one the chief princes, " not unique at all. Then if Michael is Jesus, are there many Christs, of which Jesus is just one? By claiming Jesus is "Michael", PRO reduces Jesus to a category of "one of the chief princes." Indeed, Jesus is not "one of" anything. PRO P6 - The Voice of the Archangel Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thessalonians 4:16). Based on this passage, PRO asserts that since Jesus is described as descending from heaven “with the voice of an archangel,” then He must be the archangel Michael. However, this verse does not teach that Jesus is an archangel, but that at His Second Coming He will be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Just as He will be attended “with a shout” and “with the trumpet of God,” so will He be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” PRO P7 - The Commander of the Lords Army Again, PRO relies on the assumption that references to titles/names inside separate passages can be interchanged at will, pending some interesting assumed similarities. Even if CON accepts this point as valid, per say, PRO does not prove the much stronger proposal that Michael the archangel is Jesus, not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God. Using a scripture that includes “Michael” as a connector for the overall premise does not hold, nor is it clear where even the slightest logic buds into a sensible framework. Conclusion: Although PRO's points apeared to be well formulated at first, PRO’s downfall is that he is not able prove that Michael the archangel is Jesus, and not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God. http://www.biblegateway.com...