Jesus is Michael the Archangel

Rebuttals of Rebuttals Unfortunatly due to space issues, I could not post Cons statements above mine for context. PRO P1 - Angel means "messenger", not necessarily a created winged seraphim, cherubim etc. Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.This argument is without foundation for it fails to take into consideration context. Clearly Gabriel cannot be confused with Christ and neither can Micah for both of them prophesied of the coming of someone other than themselves who would be the Messiah. See Luke 1: 35, Micah 5: 2 etc. Context therefore rules out the possibility that they are Christ. There is no context that prohibits Michael from being Jesus. If the meaning of the word Michael was the sole argument to determine the identity of Michael as Jesus the argument would not stand however this argument is built on the context of all the scriptures referring to Michael. PRO P2- Jacob was redeemed by an angel.Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above. Admitted - The Angel that redeemed Jesus is not identified as Michael. This argument is presented to reveal that the Bible clearly and repeatedly calls God/Jesus an angel. It would be blasphemous to state that anyone other than Jesus is able to redeem Con has not shown that God cannot be called an angel. PRO P3 - God is the angel in the burning bush. Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above. Admitted - The Angel in the burning bush is not identified as Michael. However this angel is clearly identified as I AM, Yahweh, the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob. Jesus claimed that He was this angel in John 8: 56 – 59. This argument is presented to reveal that Jesus clearly identifies himself as the angel in the burning bush. It would be blasphemous to state that anyone other than God could be called “I AM”. Con has not shown that God cannot be called an angel. PRO P4 - “The Lord rebuke thee”Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above. Pro has missed the main point of this argument. Indeed similarities of sentence structure are not proof. This argument is presented to remove the objection that Michael cannot be Jesus because he is speaking on behalf of God. These verses demonstrate that this is a typical way for God to speak when in the presence of Satan. Con has failed to show a contrast here between Michael and Jesus but rather he has highlighted a distinct similarity. "The Lord rebuke you" does nothing to show the Lord’s superiority over Michael. This is clearly demonstrated by the statement in Zech 3: 2 Where God uses these exact words to speak to Satan. If pro’s argument is used in the context of Zech 3 God is showing superiority . . . over God. Clearly this is an argument without foundation. Con has proved nothing about the difference between angels and God by quoting 2 Peter 2: 11 for he fails to note that the accusation in both passages is a “railing” or “slanderous” accusation. This passage proves that both Michael and the angels are unable to slander. It contains not a shred of evidence to show that Michael is not able to judge Satan. Clearly neither God nor the angels can bring a railing/slanderous accusation for they are holy and beyond sin. This contrast does not exist for Jude is not talking about a rebuke or judgment, he is speaking of a railing or slanderous accusation. Jesus cannot slander for He is holy. Con has failed to show any contrast between Michael and Jesus in these passages. PRO P5 - Michael the PrinceObservers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above. CON has established a dangerous principle in this argument. Con claims that because Michael is “one of” the chief princes he cannot be unique. He also assumes that all the chief princes are of the same rank and therefore being “one of” the chief princes makes Michael the same rank as the others. Can CON produce any evidence to demonstrate that all the chief princes are of the same rank? Question Is Jesus a man? Yes. Is He “one of” many “chief” men? Yes. Just because Jesus is “one of” many men does that take away his uniqueness as the greatest of all men? Clearly not! Question Is Jesus a Messenger? Yes. Is He “one of” many messengers? Yes. Just because Jesus is “one of” many messengers does that take away his uniqueness as the greatest messenger of all time? Clearly not! Question Is Jesus a prince? Yes. (Rev 1: 5) Is He one of many princes? Yes. If being “one of” makes Jesus the same rank as all princes then CON has made Jesus the same rank as Jacob or Satan who are also called a princes. This passage actually demonstrates Jesus is a higher rank than the other chief princes for he is not just a chief (“rishown”, strongs 7223) [1] prince but is revealed elsewhere in scripture to be the first (Archo strongs 757) [2] in rank of all the chief princes. PRO P6 - The Voice of the Archangel Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.John 5: 28 Reveals that the voice that Jesus comes with is His own voice and the trumpet that sounds is His own trumpet. Zech 9: 14 CON has not proved that the Shout, Trumpet and voice of the Archangel cannot be the voice and trumpet of God. PRO P7 - The Commander of the Lords Army Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.Admitted - The Angel of the Lord is not identified as Michael. This argument is presented to reveal that the Bible clearly and repeatedly calls God/Jesus an angel. Also, Rev 12 identifies the identifies Michael, an angel, as the leader of the armies of heaven. Joshua is confronted by an angel, who is the leader of the armies of heaven. Con states that it is illogical to claim that these are the same person. What evidence can CON produce to demonstrate that a change of leadership has taken place between these two events? One wonders at the logic of boldly claiming that these are two different individuals without a statement from scripture to support it... Con has not shown that God cannot be called an angel.[1] The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, James Strong L.L.D, S.T.D, referance no. 7223[2] Ibid, reference no. 757