Michael the Archangel, a characterization of Jesus in heaven?

[Eloi]

We, Jehovah's Witnesses, consider that Jesus is also the Archangel Michael. It is not just our belief, as many biblical scholars of other religious denominations have considered the matter in the same way.

Can this idea be demonstrated with the Bible? If that is not the case, the idea will not even be part of the Jehovah's Witness body of doctrines. In no way would we consider as belief something that did not have sufficient biblical support.

I would like to talk about that matter on this topic, as there is a lot of information that I would like to share about it. The subject of debate is: can it be demonstrated with the Bible that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? My answer is that you can do that, and in passing the topic I will try to prove it.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to tam in post #7]
I have already commented on "one of the foremost princes." I compared many versions, and I believe that "one" is translated sloppily in most versions. I believe that "one" sets forth the idea of the first of the princes, which would describe Michael/Jesus. I think that is what the writer was trying to convey.

one = top of the list, the first

[Eloi]

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Eloi in post #12]

Is my point above not worth consideration?

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #12]

Is my point above not worth consideration?

It is an interesting idea ... But the Hebrew text says literally: "one (in quantity) of ... the first ones".

Heb. 1:4?So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

What that text says happened after the death of Jesus. The same happened with Michael: as in the retouched photos: a "before" and an "after". Although Michael in Moses' time did not disavow Satan from his reign, thousands of years later he banished him from heaven (Rev. 12:7-10), because he was a more authoritative Michael, as described in Scripture ALSO about Jesus.

[Miles]

[Eloi]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]
On Guidelines for the TD&D subforum :

In this subforum (...)
No single translation trumps another, and when differences of opinion arise regarding various translations, Hebrew and Greek sources will have a greater authority. Sticking to a single translation to prove your point, when the majority of translations disagree, is not allowed, and your point must then be proven by deferring to the original language in which it was written.

I just brought the Greek text. I have nothing else to debate with you about it. Period.

[Eloi]

[onewithhim]

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Yes, and who else has this position besides Jesus? He is the only one who is mediating between God and people. No one else is mentioned in the accounts in Matthew and Luke, etc. So that surely means that Jesus is in the position of Michael at Daniel 12, and vice versa for the account in Matthew. They are the same Person.

Not so, not even close.

Michael's position was not as a mediator but as a representative.

There is no vice-versa.

[Difflugia]

I just brought the Greek text. I have nothing else to debate with you about it. Period.

And the Greek text supports the ambiguity that you deny is there. The Greek preposition ?? is too general to say for certain that the Lord is the one doing the shouting, voicing, or trumping. Grammatically, the Lord may just be in the midst of those things and not their source. That's not how I would personally read it, but even if nothing else, I've learned from apologists that many doctrinal points hinge on very slippery interpretations of grammar that are far more dubious than this one. Despite your assertion to the contrary, the Greek supports that the translation Miles is quoting might be right.