Are Jesus and Michael the same person?

[Repox]

Revelation 112 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[a] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

That's Jesus. Yes, or no?

Matthew 17:2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

That is Jesus for sure.

Daniel 10:5 there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. 6 His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult. 7 Now I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great dread fell on them, and they ran away to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great vision; yet no strength was left in me, for my natural color turned to a deathly pallor, and I retained no strength....13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia...16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I feel very weak. 20 So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11:1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.).

In this vision of Daniel the one speaking to Daniel (the glorified son of man) and the one touching him (the man Jesus?) are the essential characters. Michael is not present but is someone else.

Your analysis of Jesus and Michael is interesting. It is no mistake that we find Michael in Daniel and in Revelation. I believe Michael is God's general. As such, he leads God's angels in the war against Satan (Rev. 12). I believe the supernatural being from Rev. 1:12-16 is God, who is also Jesus the one murdered by men. To avoid confusion, Jesus was God, not his son.

Not understanding that God is a duality, NT authors, including the author of Revelation, interpreted stories and rumors about Jesus to mean he was the son of God. Revelation could be rewritten without Jesus as the son of God. Back then, as of now, everyone believes Jesus to be the son of God. I believe visions given to John the author of Revelations were about the end of the world and God (Jesus).

 

[captainbryce]

This is an OT prophecy referring to Christ which Matthew clearly spells out (Mat 1:23) with the help of Christ (Luk 24:27).

I'm aware of that. But that doesn't answer my question. Is Immanual another name for Jesus, yes or no?

But nowhere in the NT does it clearly state he was an angel much less Michael the archangel.

I'm aware of that as well. That's why I said "probably" and not "absolutely".

In fact, it implies He was separate from the angelic realm. For instance:

The definite article "the" [ho] is absent from the Greek. The NKJV correctly renders it "an" archangel.

I don't believe that the absence of a definite article automatically implies that an indefinite article should be used in it's place. Your favorite "translation" of the bible is no more "correct" on this issue than any other translation. Greek is not English. But let's assume that you are correct for a moment, and that it is "an Archangel"....SO WHAT? How does this imply that Jesus is separate from the angelic realm (whatever that means). I've already conceded that he was separate in the sense that he was higher than the rest of them (which is essentially what Archangel means).

Would you agree with Call_of_the_Wild that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is meant to imply that Michael (or some other Archangel) was WITH Jesus, and that the phrase "with the voice of (an) archangel" is not possessive?

This implies there could be more than one. Dan 10:13 suggests there is:

Dan 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.​

True. But look at it from Daniel's perspective! He also interacted with Gabriel (another angel of the Lord). If you had encountered TWO supernatural beings who were messengers of God and you had to describe one of them, you'd probably refer to him as one of God's chief princes. The passage isn't denoting rank in this case, and we should infer nothing more than is actually said.

I do not think the bible is clear on his pre-incarnate name, but I'm convinced he was distinctly created separate from the angelic kingdom:

I am in agreement with you here. This fact was never in dispute! All things were created through him!

But I find it odd that you might think that Jesus was "created". Most Trinitarians believe that he ALWAYS existed. Are you not a Trinitarian?

One of the definitions for the Greek term "ginomai", is to come into existence. How could Christ be “ginomai” or “come into existence” better than “the” angels, if He already was one?

Because he came into existence FIRST! Without him, there were no angels.

Additionally, If His pre-incarnate name was Michael, Christ Himself missed a perfect opportunity to make it clear here:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."​

Well, I honestly don't think his pre-incarnate name was particularly relevant to his message of salvation, only the fact that he was pre-incarnate! Did you forget Acts 4:10? (for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved). What possible good would have come from him mentioning this pre-incarnate name to the disciples?

 

[savagewind]

Is Immanual another name for Jesus, yes or no?

There is a difference between someone's real name and the name someone is called. Jesus is called god but by who? God? Or other people?

I think it doesn't say "and he will be Immanual". I think it says "he will be called Immanual". And he is. It came true.

 

[captainbryce]

There is a difference between someone's real name and the name someone is called.

I agree with you 100%. And actually this is the point that I'm making. :yes:

Jesus is called god but by who? God? Or other people?

Again, I agree!

I think it doesn't say "and he will be Immanual". I think it says "he will be called Immanual". And he is. It came true.

Once again, my point is that while on Earth, Jesus the savior was not called Michael the Archangel. But in heaven he would be (if that was his heavenly identity). Just as Mary may have called Jesus Immanuel despite him being known as Jesus (Yeshua) to the rest of the world.

 

[savagewind]

I agree with you 100%. And actually this is the point that I'm making. :yes:

Again, I agree!

Once again, my point is that while on Earth, Jesus the savior was not called Michael the Archangel. But in heaven he would be (if that was his heavenly identity). Just as Mary may have called Jesus Immanuel despite him being known as Jesus (Yeshua) to the rest of the world.

I think Mary did not call her son "god is with us". Michael means "who is like God". Why is Jesus called that?

 

[captainbryce]

I think Mary did not call her son "god is with us". Michael means "who is like God".

Well, SOMEBODY called him that.

Why is Jesus called that?

Why is he called what? "God is with us", or "Who is like God"?

 

[james2ko]

I'm aware of that. But that doesn't answer my question. Is Immanual another name for Jesus, yes or no?

1. I thought the answer to your question was inherent in my reply. But if I must be specific then yes --but with a caveat. This particular name was clearly and undoubtedly pointed out by Matthew to be associated with Jesus--Michael is not.

I don't believe that the absence of a definite article automatically implies that an indefinite article should be used in it's place. Your favorite "translation" of the bible is no more "correct" on this issue than any other translation. Greek is not English. But let's assume that you are correct for a moment, and that it is "an Archangel"....SO WHAT? How does this imply that Jesus is separate from the angelic realm (whatever that means). I've already conceded that he was separate in the sense that he was higher than the rest of them (which is essentially what Archangel means).

2. By utilizing supporting passages like Heb 1:5-9, 13-14. The language used throughout these verses emphasizes distinction not only in rank but in created quality. For instance Col 1:15 states Christ was made in the "image" of God. This distinctive claim is never made of the angelic hosts.

Would you agree with Call_of_the_Wild that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is meant to imply that Michael (or some other Archangel) was WITH Jesus, and that the phrase "with the voice of (an) archangel" is not possessive?

3. That's correct. Christ will return with angels by His side (Mar 8:38; Mat 16:27). One of them could possibly be Michael. Therefore it should not be without the realm of possibility for a chief prince like Michael or even Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God (Lk 1:19) and announced Christ first coming (Dan 9:24; Lk 1:26), to shout a proclamation for His second coming:

Rev 12:7 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.​

Grant it we are not told it was Michael making this proclamation but he is mentioned three verses later. Combining these passages and comparing them with the single archangel's voice in 1 thes 4:16:

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.​

along with no grammatical connection between "the Lord" and "an archangel" forms a compelling argument, IMO, supporting the separation of the one descending versus the one shouting.

True. But look at it from Daniel's perspective! He also interacted with Gabriel (another angel of the Lord). If you had encountered TWO supernatural beings who were messengers of God and you had to describe one of them, you'd probably refer to him as one of God's chief princes. The passage isn't denoting rank in this case, and we should infer nothing more than is actually said.

4. Before encountering these angelic beings, Daniel also encountered one he likened to the Son of Man who was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations (Dan 7:13-14). Apparently, Daniel makes an observable distinction between this "Son of man" (believed to be Christ) and the chief princes Michael and Gabriel in Dan chapters 8-10.

I am in agreement with you here. This fact was never in dispute! All things were created through him!

5. Are we actually agreeing on something?:areyoucra

But I find it odd that you might think that Jesus was "created". Most Trinitarians believe that he ALWAYS existed. Are you not a Trinitarian?

6. No I am not.

Because he came into existence FIRST! Without him, there were no angels.

7. And that is why He was created first and much "better" than a mere angel-- in the image of His Father and with the power to create all that exists including the angelic beings. A claim nowhere made of any angelic being.

What possible good would have come from him mentioning this pre-incarnate name to the disciples?

8. None. Which is probably why He did not.

Well, I honestly don't think his pre-incarnate name was particularly relevant to his message of salvation, only the fact that he was pre-incarnate! Did you forget Acts 4:10? (for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved).

9. We agreed two times in one post? Christ must be on His way

 

[savagewind]

Well, SOMEBODY called him that.

Many people do call him that. The Catholic Curch for one.

Why is he called what? "God is with us", or "Who is like God"?

Why is Jesus name "in heaven", as you say, "who is like god"? Do you agree that it is a question not a statement?

It is impossible for me to believe Jesus is in heaven ever asking "who is like God?". If Michael meant "no one is like God" then you would have a case for it being Jesus name imo.

 

[savagewind]

My point is Michael means who is like god, a question I suppose. It is my understanding Jesus is the only one who knows without a shadow of doubt that there is NO ONE like God. Why would his name mean a question?

 

[captainbryce]

Many people do call him that. The Catholic Curch for one.

I guess that answers the question then! Jesus does in fact have more than one name. The name we apply to him depends on the context of what we are talking about (ie: his role in the conversation).

Why is Jesus name "in heaven", as you say, "who is like god"? Do you agree that it is a question not a statement?

To the second question, yes, I agree that it is probably a question (but I can't back that up with anything other than tradition). I'll answer your first question later!

It is impossible for me to believe Jesus is in heaven ever asking "who is like God?". If Michael meant "no one is like God" then you would have a case for it being Jesus name imo.

My point is Michael means who is like god, a question I suppose. It is my understanding Jesus is the only one who knows without a shadow of doubt that there is NO ONE like God. Why would his name mean a question?

Because, if your presumption is correct, and Jesus IS the only one who knows without a shadow of a doubt, the the logical follow up to that would be that everyone else DOES NOT. I think the flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that Jesus is the one asking the question (about his name). But the question isn't for Jesus, it's for anyone else who might hear it. Whether he is in heaven or on Earth, the answer remains the same. There is only ONE like God, and it is Jesus himself.

 

[savagewind]

I guess that answers the question then! Jesus does in fact have more than one name. The name we apply to him depends on the context of what we are talking about (ie: his role in the conversation).

To the second question, yes, I agree that it is probably a question (but I can't back that up with anything other than tradition). I'll answer your first question later!

Because, if your presumption is correct, and Jesus IS the only one who knows without a shadow of a doubt, the the logical follow up to that would be that everyone else DOES NOT. I think the flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that Jesus is the one asking the question (about his name). But the question isn't for Jesus, it's for anyone else who might hear it. Whether he is in heaven or on Earth, the answer remains the same. There is only ONE like God, and it is Jesus himself.

Asking who is like me is bragging. Can you imagine Jesus bragging? You believe he is God. Can you imagine God bragging? If God really is a bragger don't you think the world would be different?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

At one point in Joshua, the Captain of the Lords Host appears to him...perhaps that was Jesus.

 

[captainbryce]

But if I must be specific then yes--but with a caveat. This particular name was clearly and undoubtedly pointed out by Matthew to be associated with Jesus--Michael is not.

I agree with you that Immanuel can be associated with Jesus. I'm only arguing that by the same logic, so can Michael. But that's all a matter of opinion. In any case, the fact that Immanuel is Jesus invalidates your previous point does it not? Here is a reminder of what you previously said:

"If Christ had another name, Peter surely did not know about it."

By your own admission, scripture seems to suggest that Jesus DID in fact have at least ONE other name; Immanuel.

2. By utilizing supporting passages like Heb 1:5-9, 13-14. The language used throughout these verses emphasizes distinction not only in rank but in created quality. For instance Col 1:15 states Christ was made in the "image" of God. This distinctive claim is never made of the angelic hosts.

Again, I am in agreement with you on this fact. But the angelic realm is in fact the "realm" of heaven (which is the same realm where the angels worship Jesus). Perhaps I misunderstood what you are implying by realm.

3. That's correct. Christ will return with angels by His side (Mar 8:38; Mat 16:27). One of them could possibly be Michael.

Fair enough. Then we have a genuine disagreement when it comes to scriptural interpretation. I tend not to consider "could possibly's" over what the text actually directly implies. The plain reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 seems to imply that Jesus is the one giving the "loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God". Michael is not mentioned in this passage, nor is the role of Michael relevant to salvation. If Michael was WITH Jesus at this time, then that begs the question WHY? This passage is not referencing any fight among angels (what Michael is known for). And IF Michael was WITH Jesus for such an uncharacteristic occasion, why then would Paul not mention him by name, therefore leaving no doubt that they are two different people? To me, there are just too many inconsistencies given how the passage is written to draw the conclusion that another archangel called Michael was with Jesus in this situation. But, that's just my opinion.

Therefore it should not be without the realm of possibility for a chief prince like Michael or even Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God (Lk 1:19) and announced Christ first coming (Dan 9:24; Lk 1:26), to shout a proclamation for His second coming:

The passages you are referencing have to do with Gabriel (a different angel) proclaiming the arrival of Jesus BEFORE his FIRST coming. Forgetting the fact that these passages show nothing of Michael's "alleged" role in announcing the arrival of Jesus's second coming, why would that even be necessary if Christ was coming at the same time? Jesus announces his own coming, with his own commanding voice in 1 Thessalonians (at least according to my interpretation). I don't think he would need an angel to announce his own coming for him at the same time. There is no indication that a separate angel called "Michael" is WITH Jesus during his second coming.

Rev 12:7 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.​

Grant it we are not told it was Michael making this proclamation but he is mentioned three verses later. Combining these passages and comparing them with the single archangel's voice in 1 thes 4:16:

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.​

along with no grammatical connection between "the Lord" and "an archangel" forms a compelling argument, IMO, supporting the separation of the one descending versus the one shouting.

You're right. It is a compelling argument. But an argument that the scriptures are in fact talking about Jesus and Michael as one in the same is equally compelling in my opinion. It can legitimately be interpreted BOTH ways. I tend to think that the Jesus = Michael interpretation is the one that makes the most sense given that Michael and Jesus are never mentioned together at the same time, and that Michael's primary role is identical to one of Jesus's principle roles after his ascension. It's like Clark Kent and Superman to me!

Here is the full passage:

Revelation 12:7-10
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

I believe that the voice from Heaven was in fact the voice of Jesus, which is also the voice of the Archangel Michael.

Having said that, I'm not saying that your interpretation is completely without merit. I'm aware that the idea that Jesus could be Michael is "unpopular" and "offensive" among mainline Christians, probably stemming from the fact that it's an idea that is accepted by only a fringe minority of Christian groups. I maintain that this belief (being completely irrelevant to salvation) isn't one that Christians should quarrel and separate themselves over. At the end of the day, NOBODY really knows what the answer is. Hopefully, we will all have the opportunity to find out. Amen!

5. Are we actually agreeing on something?:areyoucra

Why is that surprising to you? No two people ever agree on everything, let alone on spiritual matters. However, I suspect that you and I actually agree on a great many things more things than we disagree on. The issues that we disagree on are likely small, and relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you disagree with that!

Most Trinitarians believe that he ALWAYS existed. Are you not a Trinitarian?

6. No I am not.

Case in point! See above. :yes:

7. And that is why He was created first and much "better" than a mere angel-- in the image of His Father and with the power to create all that exists including the angelic beings. A claim nowhere made of any angelic being.

Again, I tend to agree with you. What does the word "angel" mean? And beyond dying for our sins, what did Christ do while he was on Earth? I don't make the claim that Christ was a mere angel; he was certainly much more. I think the only area where we tend to disagree is to what status should be given to "Michael". I don't believe that he was a mere angel either, and that's why I think the term "Archangel" is used for him alone. I think that the fact that Michael was singled out in this scope is reason enough to conclude that like Jesus, he was no mere angel either.

What possible good would have come from him mentioning this pre-incarnate name to the disciples?

8. None. Which is probably why He did not.

Exactly! :yes:

That being the case, there is no reason why Michael could not be Jesus (under a different name in heaven). The fact that the disciples didn't know that name is irrelevant. There is no reason why they should have!

9. We agreed two times in one post? Christ must be on His way

Cheers!

 

[captainbryce]

Asking who is like me is bragging. Can you imagine Jesus bragging?

How do you figure?

Mark 8:29
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah."

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Was Jesus "bragging" when he said this about himself?

You believe he is God. Can you imagine God bragging?

A) I DON'T believe that Jesus is God. I believe that he is God's only begotten Son.

B) I don't believe that Jesus was "bragging" when someone else named him a question (who is like God). For one thing, he didn't give himself his own name, and secondly, the answer to the question is in fact true. So nobody is bragging!

 

[james2ko]

I agree with you that Immanuel can be associated with Jesus. I'm only arguing that by the same logic, so can Michael. But that's all a matter of opinion. In any case, the fact that Immanuel is Jesus invalidates your previous point does it not? Here is a reminder of what you previously said: "If Christ had another name, Peter surely did not know about it." By your own admission, scripture seems to suggest that Jesus DID in fact have at least ONE other name; Immanuel.

1. Yes He did. But unlike Immanuel, no where in scripture does it state Michael was one of them.

Again, I am in agreement with you on this fact. But the angelic realm is in fact the "realm" of heaven (which is the same realm where the angels worship Jesus). Perhaps I misunderstood what you are implying by realm.

2. I used the term angelic "hosts" who occupy the heavenly "realm". But more importantly is the distinction made between Christ and the angels in Heb 1:5-9, 13-14.

Fair enough. Then we have a genuine disagreement when it comes to scriptural interpretation. I tend not to consider "could possibly's" over what the text actually directly implies.

3. "Could possibly" and "implies" are synonymous terms. Direct implication, in our context, is a contradiction in terms. It's either a direct observation or it is implicated. It cannot be both.

The plain reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 seems to imply that Jesus is the one giving the "loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God".

4. The grammatical evidence suggests otherwise. The preposition "en" [with] associated with the dative nouns "shout", "voice", and "trumpet" suggest a time-- not an associative aspect. To associate Christ with the one shouting, the preposition "meta" would have been inspired. Meta denotes a sense of accompaniment:

Strongs G3326 μετά meta met-ah'--A primary preposition (often used adverbially); properly denoting accompaniment; “amid” (local or causal); modified variously according to the case (genitive case association, or accusative case succession) with which it is joined; occupying an intermediate position between G575 or G1537 and G1519 or G4314; less intimate than G1722, and less close than G4862): - after (-ward),X that he again, against, among, X and, + follow, hence, hereafter, in, of, (up-) on, + our, X and setting, since, (un-) to, + together, when, with (+ -out). Often used in composition, in substantially the same relations of participation or proximity, and transfer or sequence.​

As opposed to "en":

A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), that is, a relation of rest (intermediate between G1519 and G1537); “in”, at, (up-) on, by, etc.: - about, after, against, + almost, X altogether, among, X as, at, before, between, (here-) by (+ all means), for (. . . sake of), + give self wholly to, (here-) in (-to, -wardly), X mightily, (because) of, (up-) on, [open-] ly, X outwardly, one, X quickly, X shortly, [speedi-] ly, X that, X there (-in, -on), through (-out), (un-) to(-ward), under, when, where (-with), while, with (-in). Often used in compounds, with substantially the same import; rarely with verbs of motion [descend is a verb of motion] , and then not to indicate direction, except (elliptically) by a separate (and different) prep.​

2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with [meta] quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

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

In the first passage, the preposition "meta" denoting accompaniment is utilized with the genitive noun "quietness". In contrast, our verse uses "en" which reflects an aspect of time with its dative nouns. The preposition "en" is translated "at" 113 times in the NT. In my humble opinion, inserting "at" instead of "with" would have been more consistent with the definitions above and better exemplified the separation between Christ and the angelic host we read about in Hebrews.

Michael is not mentioned in this passage, nor is the role of Michael relevant to salvation.

5. Neither are the rest of the angels, yet the bible states they will appear with Jesus.

If Michael was WITH Jesus at this time, then that begs the question WHY?

6. Because the scriptures testify angels will accompany Him (Mk 8:38)

This passage is not referencing any fight among angels (what Michael is known for). And IF Michael was WITH Jesus for such an uncharacteristic occasion, why then would Paul not mention him by name, therefore leaving no doubt that they are two different people?

7. Arguments from silence can be used to defend either one of our positions.

To me, there are just too many inconsistencies given how the passage is written to draw the conclusion that another archangel called Michael was with Jesus in this situation. But, that's just my opinion.

8. And you're certainly entitled to it. But I personally do not see any inconsistencies.

 

[james2ko]

The passages you are referencing have to do with Gabriel (a different angel) proclaiming the arrival of Jesus BEFORE his FIRST coming. Forgetting the fact that these passages show nothing of Michael's "alleged" role in announcing the arrival of Jesus's second coming, why would that even be necessary if Christ was coming at the same time? Jesus announces his own coming, with his own commanding voice in 1 Thessalonians (at least according to my interpretation). I don't think he would need an angel to announce his own coming for him at the same time.

9. That would be inconsistent with the coronation of Israel's kings:

2Ki 9:12-13 "You're hiding something," they said. "Tell us." So Jehu told them, "He said to me, 'This is what the LORD says: I have anointed you to be king over Israel.'" 13 Then they quickly spread out their cloaks on the bare steps and blew the ram's horn, shouting, "Jehu is king!"

1 Ki 1:39 There Zadok the priest took the flask of olive oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon with the oil. Then they sounded the ram's horn and all the people shouted, "Long live King Solomon!" ​

Israelite kings did not make their own proclamations. It was done by others.

There is no indication that a separate angel called "Michael" is WITH Jesus during his second coming.

10. I believe there is more of an indication Michael was present among the group of angels returning with Christ than not (Mk 8:38) .

You're right. It is a compelling argument. But an argument that the scriptures are in fact talking about Jesus and Michael as one in the same is equally compelling in my opinion. It can legitimately be interpreted BOTH ways. I tend to think that the Jesus = Michael interpretation is the one that makes the most sense given that Michael and Jesus are never mentioned together at the same time,

11. This could also imply they were separate beings.

and that Michael's primary role is identical to one of Jesus's principle roles after his ascension. It's like Clark Kent and Superman to me!

12. I think their roles are more loosely related to Batman and Robin.

Here is the full passage:

Revelation 12:7-10
7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah.For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

13. Think about it, CB. If Christ were indeed Michael, do you really think He would need the help of other angels to fight satan and his demons??

Again, I tend to agree with you. What does the word "angel" mean? And beyond dying for our sins, what did Christ do while he was on Earth? I don't make the claim that Christ was a mere angel; he was certainly much more. I think the only area where we tend to disagree is to what status should be given to "Michael". I don't believe that he was a mere angel either, and that's why I think the term "Archangel" is used for him alone. I think that the fact that Michael was singled out in this scope is reason enough to conclude that like Jesus, he was no mere angel either.

14. The indication to me is Michael being an angel with higher authority than other angels [archaggelos]. Christ is a spirit-being created separate and prior to all angels [aggelos], in the Father's image (Col 1:15), and used to subsequently create the angelic beings (Ps 104:4) including the archangels. Add to that Heb 2:5, stating the world to come would not be controlled by angels would eliminate Christ from being one.

That being the case, there is no reason why Michael could not be Jesus (under a different name in heaven). The fact that the disciples didn't know that name is irrelevant. There is no reason why they should have!

15. I beg to differ. As I've already outlined, there are plenty of reasons why Michael could not be Jesus.

I believe that the voice from Heaven was in fact the voice of Jesus, which is also the voice of the Archangel Michael. Having said that, I'm not saying that your interpretation is completely without merit. I'm aware that the idea that Jesus could be Michael is "unpopular" and "offensive" among mainline Christians, probably stemming from the fact that it's an idea that is accepted by only a fringe minority of Christian groups. I maintain that this belief (being completely irrelevant to salvation) isn't one that Christians should quarrel and separate themselves over. At the end of the day, NOBODY really knows what the answer is.

16. I'm not a mainline Christian (I observe the 7th day Sabbath and holy days). The collective biblical, grammatical, historical, direct and circumstantial evidence would indicate to me they are not the same person. Frankly, all you have is circumstantial evidence. Although, I'm not one to stick my head in the sand. God tells us we are to grow in grace and knowledge (2 Pet 3:18). If God decides to reveal direct, compelling evidence, I will certainly reconsider my position. My time is up. I know you like to get the last word in so have at it.

Hopefully, we will all have the opportunity to find out. Amen!

17. I second that!

 

[Muffled]

That is a bad analogy but a good joke Who is the one in Daniel's vision?

I beleive he is an Angel and definitely not Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

That sounds just fine. Thank you.

The glowing man in the image of Daniel is obviously greater than the other character in the vision who is called Michael. There is no greater image than Jesus. Is there?

I believe there are many images and perhaps the image of Jesus in the book of Revelation is a great one but that still does not mean one image is equatable to another. As I recall the angel who makes important announcements like the conception of Jesus is Gabriel.

Da 9:21 yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

 

[Muffled]

Are Jesus and Michael the same person? The answer is: probably! We cannot say for certain that they are indeed the same person because the bible never specifically refers to Jesus as "Michael" or and archangel, nor does it refer to the Archangel Michael as "Jesus" or the Messiah. However, based on the way each of them is described, and their peripheral roles, it certainly lends credence to the suggestion that they are the same person. Many people in the bible have multiple names, and are known under alternate pseudonym depending on their particular role/mission at any given time.

Genesis 49:2
Assemble and listen, sons of Jacob; listen to your father Israel.

Numbers 13:16
These are the names of the men Moses sent to explore the land. (Moses gave Hoshea son of Nun the name Joshua.)

Daniel 1:7
The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.

Matthew 10:2
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John

Matthew 9:9
As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Mark 2:14
As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Jacob and Israel are the same person. Simon and Peter are the same person. Saul and Paul are the same person. And there are many more examples of this happening throughout scripture. Most Christians believe that Satan and Lucifer are the same person (based on some questionable evidence). But there is just as much evidence to conclude that Jesus and Michael are the same person. Michael is the only angel in the canonical bible that's ever described as "Archangel". And although many claim that Gabriel and Raphael are also archangels, they are never actually called that in the canonical scriptures, only in extra-biblical sources. The term itself means "Chief Angel", which would therefore make it illogical that more than one angel hold that title. However, like Michael, Jesus is also described as being an Archangel.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

2 Thessalonians 1:7
and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.

Revelation 12:7
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.

That seems pretty conclusive to me. Jesus' role after the second coming is identical to Michael's. They are both described as an archangel who descend from heaving, in command of other angels, to fight evil. It is logical to conclude that the Archangel Michael is another name for Jesus (serving in a different role than he did when on Earth as a human).

I believe this is not so. Being in the company of an archangel does not make Jesus an archangel.

 

[jtartar]

Revelation 112 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[a] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

That's Jesus. Yes, or no?

Matthew 17:2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

That is Jesus for sure.

Daniel 10:5 there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. 6 His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult. 7 Now I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great dread fell on them, and they ran away to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great vision; yet no strength was left in me, for my natural color turned to a deathly pallor, and I retained no strength....13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia...16 Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, "I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I feel very weak. 20 So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. 11:1 And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.).

In this vision of Daniel the one speaking to Daniel (the glorified son of man) and the one touching him (the man Jesus?) are the essential characters. Michael is not present but is someone else.

Savagewind,
It seems almost certain that Michael is the name of Jesus when he was originally in heaven, and that he has taken on that name again.
One reason I say that is because Jesus and Michael both do the things that Jesus is going to do.
Dan 12:1, says that Michael is to stand up for his people in the end times. In the following verses we see that there is to be much trouble, the same is to happen when Jesus comes into his Kingdom, Rev 6:2, and right after is the riders of the four Horses, 11:18, Rev 2:26,26, 19:11-21.
There are also many other scriptures in the Hebrew that prophecy the same things.
Of all scripture that tells me that Jesus and Michael are the same person is found at Jude 9, where it says that THE Archangel Michael disputed with Satan. There is only ONE Archangel. The title Archangel means Chief Angel.
Then 1Thess 4:15-17 says that the lord will descend from heaven with an archangels voice. Since there is only ONE Archangel, Jesus is that archangel.
Other scriptures that point toward Jesus as being Michael is found at Rev 12:1-12, where we see the birth of the Kingdom, then right after that we see Michael and the Devil engaged in war, where Michael throws the Devil and his angels out of heaven, down to the earth. Then WOE for the earth!!! This is what the Bible foretells would happen after Jesus gains power as King of the Kingdom, Rev 6:2-8, 11:15-18.
Jesus is to become the King of the Kingdom,Matt 19:28, Matt 24:29-31, 25:31-46, Rev 6:2, 11:15,17