Jesus is Michael the Archangel

Rebuttals of RebuttalsCON will continue to demonstrate that PRO”s argument concerning the equality of Michael the archangel and Jesus does not hold. In this round, CON will refute PRO's rebuttals to CON's orginial points. The original points are underlined subheadings.CON P1 - The Son is distinct from angelic beings.If the argument against the equivalency of Michael the archangel and Jesus required only one point, and one point required one passage of scripture, Hebrews 1:5-8 would suffice for it shows:1) A clear distinction between Jesus and the angels, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’? Or again, ‘I will be His Father, and He will be my Son’? And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all God's angels worship Him.’ This passage alone proves that Michael could never have been the Son.In speaking of the angels He says, ‘He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.’ But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’”2) The hierarchy of heavenly beings is made clear in this passage—angels worship Jesus who, as God, is alone worthy of worship. No angel is ever worshipped in Scripture; therefore, Jesus (worthy of worship) cannot be Michael or any other angel (not worthy of worship). The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4;Job 1:6;2:1;38:7), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8;Matthew 4:3-6).PRO has chosen not to refute this argument based on scripture, but has instead claimed (without scriptural support) that Michael the archangel may be worshiped if he is in "the form of Jesus"(PRO). Based on this claim, PRO is asserting one of two things:1. That Michael the archangel may be workshiped when he is in the form of the Son.2. That Michael the archangel may be workshiped when he is in the form of a man. Clearly, 1. is not possible based on the scritputre above-The writer eloquently points out that God never said to any angel (archangels are angels) that they are his Son. Indeed, the scripture above excludes the possibility that an angel could become the Son, since the angel would be the Son from the beginning. Which leaves 2. Michael the archangel cannot be worshiped in the form of a man, or angel-man, since he is still an angel by nature and can never accept worship (Revelation 19:10).CON P2 - Angels do not accept worshipPRO claims that Michael appears to Joshua and accepts worship in Joshua 5:14-15 “14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15 And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so"Instead it is evident that PRO's conclusion is absent of this consideration: In verse 14 above we read that Joshua asks, "What saith my lord unto his servant?" Notice the lowercase "l" applied to "lord". In verse 15 we see the writer apply an uppercase "L" to another "Lord", "And the captain of the Lord's host." Clearly, the passage refers to two seperate beings: the Lord Jesus, and the lord Michael, captiain of the host of the Lord Jesus.CON P3 - Jesus Accepted WorshipPRO agrees but asks for a clarification of Joshua 5: 14-15, which is given in detail directly above, under CON P2.CON P4 - The World to come is not subject to AngelsHere, PRO misquotes CON, "Stating that Michael is not going to be in charge of the world to come because only Jesus will be is like stating the Messiah would not be in charge of the world to come, only Jesus." That is, CON never stated that "Michael is not going to be in charge of the world to come." Check above for proof of this. However, CON did provide a scripture where Paul claims, "For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak"[Hebrews 2:5]. CON admits, it does seem to send the same message.CON P5 - Angels cannot judge SatanPRO has decided to deflect the attention away from the point by keying in on "railing accusation" in Jude 9. So it will be explained:Jude introduced this event to stress the dangerous indecency of speaking evil or speaking disdainfully of exalted angels in God’s hierarchy of creation, let alone of God Himself. Michael is one of God’s archangels, yet Satan (Lucifer) had once been the highest of all, as the anointed cherub over God’s throne (Ezekiel 28:14). So even though Satan had fallen from heaven, he was still treated with great respect by Michael when contending with him. (As a parrellel for this type of behavior in the human realm, recall how David acted when Saul tried to kill him; David knew he could never lay a hand on, or bring any kind of accusation against Saul, God's anointed (2 Samuel 24:6;2 Samuel 24:12). Thus, "Railing accusation" is not meant to be compared against a rebuke, for he clearly does, in the same passage. Rather it is identified as a word usuage meant to stress the heart of the matter, and also, shed light on the heiarchy of heaven. Finally, recall that the Lord Jesus, unlike Michael, is over Satan, and thus, a rebuke is able to cary his title.[Jude 9;John 8:44]Conclusion: Viewers should consider whether they are conviced that PRO has shown that Michael the archangel is Jesus, and not merely that an “angel of the Lord” is God. Thank you.