Are Jesus and Michael the same person?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

Based on what I've read, I am trying to figure out how these scriptures can be said to imply that Jesus and Michael are the same person. Jesus is not Michael. Michael is an archangel, and Jesus is the Son of the living God, second person of the Trinity. This is like comparing a paper airplane to the Boeing 747.

 

[captainbryce]

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).

 

[captainbryce]

Michael is an archangel, and Jesus is the Son of the living God,

According to Matthew 13:41 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Jesus is ALSO the Archangel.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

According to Matthew 13:41 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Jesus is ALSO the Archangel.

Jude 1:9

 

[captainbryce]

Jude 1:9

...does absolutely nothing to address any of the points I made. :sarcastic

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

...does absolutely nothing to address any of the points I made. :sarcastic

It does, actually. The archangel Michael told Satan "The Lord rebuke you!!" If Jesus is Michael and he was given all power and authority from God, why couldn't he rebuke Satan??? Makes no sense.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I believe the entire book of revelation is symbolic.

Does you believe that the letters to the churches were symbolic?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

To answer the op, I believe that Michael and Jesus were different persons.

 

[captainbryce]

It does, actually. The archangel Michael told Satan "The Lord rebuke you!!" If Jesus is Michael and he was given all power and authority from God, why couldn't he rebuke Satan??? Makes no sense.

He COULD. But he chose not to because he didn't feel it was his place to do that at that time. Choosing not to do something is not the same thing as not being able to do something. You are creating a false dichotomy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

He COULD. But he chose not to because he didn't feel it was his place to do that at that time. Choosing not to do something is not the same thing as not being able to do something. You are creating a false dichotomy.

Ok so give me the reason why the "time" wasn't right to rebuke the god of evil? Not only that but the scripture said "... he did not dare"....so he did not DARE to do it at that particular time because that particular time was ohhhh so special, as Michael was celebrating the month of "non-rebuking", a holiday celebrated in heaven or something? I mean, what was so special about this time? Oh puhhhleeaseee.

 

[captainbryce]

Ok so give me the reason why the "time" wasn't right to rebuke the god of evil? Not only that but the scripture said "... he did not dare"....so he did not DARE to do it at that particular time because that particular time was ohhhh so special, as Michael was celebrating the month of "non-rebuking", a holiday celebrated in heaven or something? I mean, what was so special about this time? Oh puhhhleeaseee.

I'd be happy to answer any and all of your questions IF you'd ever take some time to answer my questions once in a while. Because I think your lack of answers to the issues I brings up already tends to make my case for me. Logically, Jesus IS the Archangel Michael because the bible describes them as one in the same. What he choose to do at any given moment and why are a complete separate issues that can and should be addressed separately. But questions about why he chose to act or not act in a certain way at any given time don't invalidate scripture! Does Jesus command angels in battle - yes or no? Does Michael command angels in battle - yes or no? Is Jesus identified with the title "Archangel" - yes or no? Is Michael identified with the title "Archangel" - yes or no? Can there be more than ONE Archangel - yes or no? Those are the questions you need to answer FIRST when establishing who is who. There is an answer for every other question that may follow that!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'd be happy to answer any and all of your questions IF you'd ever take some time to answer my questions once in a while. Because I think your lack of answers to the issues I brings up already tends to make my case for me.

Lets see whatcha got.

Logically, Jesus IS the Archangel Michael because the bible describes them as one in the same.

Disagree. And if that 1 Thess scripture is all you have to offer to make a whole DOCTRINE of Jesus being Michael, then I continue to disagree.

What he choose to do at any given moment and why are a complete separate issues that can and should be addressed separately. But questions about why he chose to act or not act in a certain way at any given time don't invalidate scripture! Does Jesus command angels in battle - yes or no?

Yes.

Does Michael command angels in battle - yes or no?

Possibly yes.

Is Jesus identified with the title "Archangel" - yes or no?

No.

Is Michael identified with the title "Archangel" - yes or no?

Yes.

Can there be more than ONE Archangel - yes or no?

Possibly yes.

Those are the questions you need to answer FIRST when establishing who is who. There is an answer for every other question that may follow that!

Don't sing it...bring it. Meanwhile, this is the way I am feeling :beach:

 

[captainbryce]

Disagree. And if that 1 Thess scripture is all you have to offer to make a whole DOCTRINE of Jesus being Michael, then I continue to disagree.

You can "disagree" all you like, but it doesn't change what the scripture says. If they have the same mission, perform the same function and are described in the same way, then the logical conclusion is that they are "the same". Secondly, Jesus being Michael isn't a "doctrine", it's merely my suspicion! At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if Jesus was Michael or not because that is not central to salvation.

Does Michael command angels in battle - yes or no?

Possibly yes.

What do you mean "probably"? Either he DID or he DIDN'T! Why else would he be called "Archangel"?

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.

How do you get a probably out of that?

Is Jesus identified with the title "Archangel" - yes or no?

No.

Really? Then how do you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:16

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.

Notice is says THE Archangel, not an Archangel! What do you think Paul's intent was when he described Jesus in this role?

Can there be more than ONE Archangel - yes or no?

Possibly yes.

Well, I hate to break it to you but the the answer is actually NO. Because the word "Archangel" means "Chief angel", and according to scripture, there is only ONE person given this title. That person is the one who leads angels in battle against Satan and the wicked.

In the 4th century, Saint Basil the Great's homily (De Angelis) placed Saint Michael over all the angels. He was called "Archangel" because he is the prince of the other angels. Into the 6th century, the view of Michael as a healer continued in Rome, when after a plague the sick slept at night in the church of Castel Sant'Angelo (dedicated to him for saving Rome), waiting for his manifestation.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Michael the Archangel

Don't sing it...bring it. Meanwhile, this is the way I am feeling :beach:

I find that disturbing because that looks like a pose of VANITY coming from someone whose goal is to "win" at all costs, rather than to actually "hear" and consider what their opponent's message actually is. And if that is your intent then please let me know (so that I can add you to my ignore list). I'm not seeking debate for the sake of debate.

 

[savagewind]

What do you mean "probably"? Either he DID or he DIDN'T! Why else would he be called "Archangel"?

It means angel of high rank. Angel means attentant, agent or messenger of God.

Why must it be believed angels or archangels battle?

 

[captainbryce]

It means angel of high rank. Angel means attentant, agent or messenger of God.

I know what the words mean, thanks!

Why must it be believed angels or archangels battle?

It isn't a question of if they battled or not. Scripture says they did! Did you even READ Revelation 12:7? The whole part about them FIGHTING kind of makes that clear!

 

[james2ko]

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).

Act 4:10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED BY YOU BUILDERS, WHICH HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."​

Not so sure about that, CB. If Christ had another name, Peter surely did not know about it. Unless of course he caught a brain cramp and forgot to mention it

 

[savagewind]

I know what the words mean, thanks!

It isn't a question of if they battled or not. Scripture says they did! Did you even READ Revelation 12:7? The whole part about them FIGHTING kind of makes that clear!

I believe Revelation speakes of contention not fighting. A battle is fought. An argument is contended with. But boys like their battles, so be it.

James 4:2 and Revelation 2:16

 

[captainbryce]

Act 4:10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED BY YOU BUILDERS, WHICH HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE.' 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."​

Not so sure about that, CB. If Christ had another name, Peter surely did not know about it. Unless of course he caught a brain cramp and forgot to mention it

A) Christ DOES have other names. Here are some of them: Jesus ("Heysoos" in Spanish), Yeshua, Joshua, and Iēsous all refer to the same person. Peter never knew the name "Jesus" at all because Jesus is not the Hebrew translation or pronounciation of it. Of course, I suppose you could argue that these are all the same "name", just different pronunciations of it. But Immanuel is not a different pronunciation of Jesus. So how would you explain that one?

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.


B) Let me refer you back to a specific part of verse 12.

Acts 4:12
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

Jesus's given name as a man was in fact Jesus, and he is the only savior of man. That is the name given to him by his parents under God's direction. This fact is not in dispute! However, the name given to his "spiritual" self may very well have been Michael. Because long before Jesus was ever born as a man on Earth, he existed in heaven. He didn't get the name Jesus until Mary and Joseph named him Jesus. So what was his name before they gave it to him? And he also existed in heaven after his death as a man. Acts 4:12 simply says that Jesus was the savior's only name "as a man".

 

[captainbryce]

I believe Revelation speakes of contention not fighting. A battle is fought. An argument is contended with. But boys like their battles, so be it.

James 4:2 and Revelation 2:16

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.

If you choose to interpret this war as one of words, then that's your prerogative. But that doesn't seem reasonable given the language that was chosen by the author. The more logical interpretation is that the war and fighting that is spoken of is the type of war and fighting that is generally understood when those words are used.

Here are the passages you called out:

James 4:2
You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God.

A) The passage says they quarrel (ie; argue) AND fight (ie; kill). They are two different things! The previous line specifically says that they kill each other. Obviously, it ins't talking about killing each other with words!

B) Who is doing the fighting in this verse? Angels or people? Is this the same battle that Jesus and/or Michael fight against Satan, or is this talking about other fighting that has nothing to do with that?


Revelation 2:16
Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Who is Jesus talking about here? Is it the battle against Satan and his angels? No. If you read the preceding verse, it's clear that this is a completely different "fight".

Revelation 2:15
Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

Those people are the subject of verse 16, not Satan and his angels! So you are taking both passages out of context by applying them to a battle that has nothing to do with these fights.

 

[james2ko]

A) Christ DOES have other names. Here are some of them: *Jesus* ("Heysoos" in Spanish), *Yeshua*, *Joshua*, and *Iēsous * all refer to the same person. Peter never knew the name "Jesus" at all because Jesus is not the Hebrew translation or pronounciation of it. Of course, I suppose you could argue that these are all the same "name", just different pronunciations of it. But Immanuel is not a different pronunciation of Jesus. So how would you explain that one?


*Isaiah 7:14*
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him _Immanuel_.

This is an OT prophecy referring to Christ which Matthew clearly spells out (Mat 1:23) with the help of Christ (Luk 24:27). But nowhere in the NT does it clearly state he was an angel much less Michael the archangel. In fact, it implies He was separate from the angelic realm. For instance:

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. Notice is says THE Archangel, not an Archangel! What do you think Paul's intent was when he described Jesus in this role?​

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

B) Let me refer you back to a specific part of verse 12.

*Acts 4:12*
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven _given to mankind_ by which we must be saved."

Jesus's given name as a man was in fact _Jesus_, and he is the only savior of man. That is the name given to him by his parents under God's direction. This fact is not in dispute! However, the name given to his "spiritual" self may very well have been Michael. Because long before Jesus was ever born as a man on Earth, he existed in heaven. He didn't get the name Jesus until Mary and Joseph named him Jesus. So what was his name before they gave it to him? And he also existed in heaven after his death as a man. Acts 4:12 simply says that Jesus was the savior's only name "as a man".

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:

Heb 1:4 Being made [ginomai]so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they​

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? The definite article "the"[ton] appears in the original as well as the pronouns "He" and "they" denoting distinctiveness between the two types of beings—Christ [He] and the angels [they]. Verses 5-9, 13-14 further imply separation between “the” angels and Christ

Heb 1:5-9, 13-14 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, TILL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES YOUR FOOTSTOOL"? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?​

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."​