Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Joshuastone7, Aug 5, 2017.

  1. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    We could have the debate that Jehovah's name was taken out of the Greek, and there are probably very good evidence this is so, however the proper name would be Jehovah, Jesus didn't exist before he was here on the earth. Remember Jesus grew from a Baby, and became a man.

    The Word was in heaven before he gave up that life to become a man, but Jesus didn't exist until he was a man.

    Make sense?
     
  2. 0
    0
    0
    BreakTheWalls

    BreakTheWalls Guest

    I just reread the scripture, I misquoted, it says that Jesus placed the demons in bonds and reserved them for Judgement. Not that he judged them.

    But if you could start another thread about the evidence that Jehovah's name was removed, because I would like to read that. Unless you have some links.
     
  3. 2,510
    824
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Earthbound,
    I was not criticizing your statement. There is a traditional aspect that people use the term "Jew", to describe the people of Israel. Unfortunately the Israelites living today cannot trace their heritage back to the tribal identification. The records were destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That is also why the no longer have a priesthood.
     
  4. 2,510
    824
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the LORD( Jehovah Exo 12:41; Num 14:35 ), having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not." ( Jude 1:5 DNKJV ) This is why the NWT also uses Jehovah in the scripture.
     
  5. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    Christian greetings, Tsaphah,

    Please be assured that I didn't take the clarification as a criticism, but rather as an important distinction, given the split of Israel into the Northern and Southern kingdoms of Judea and Israel. I appreciated the point, really. ;)

    Likewise with JoshuaStone's reminder about the presence of "ho," in his earlier comment in response to my statement about the lack of articles in the original Greek language. ^_^

    ~~Earthbound
     
    Joshuastone7 likes this.
  6. 0
    0
    0
    BreakTheWalls

    BreakTheWalls Guest

    The watchtower is wrong yet again for changing the scripture Jude 1:5, this verse proves Jesus is not Jehovah.

    If we take "Jesus" as the correct rendering of Jude 5.

    There's someone who is there throughout the entire story.

    When Moses saw the burning bush:

    > "2 Then **Jehovah’s angel** appeared to him in a flame of fire in the midst of a thornbush. As he kept looking, he saw that the thornbush was on fire, and yet the thornbush was not consumed." Exodus 3:2

    God told Moses he would lead the Israelites on the journey.

    > "I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him. 22 However, if you strictly obey his voice and do all that I say, I will show hostility to your enemies and oppose those who oppose you. 23 For my angel will go ahead of you and will bring you to the Amʹor·ites, the Hitʹtites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Caʹnaan·ites, the Hiʹvites, and the Jebʹu·sites, and I will annihilate them." Exodus 23:20-24
     
  7. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother...

    The first and foremost issue I have with the book of Enoch is that those who hold it as fact read that a physical seed of Satan survived the flood and became the African race, and have no hope of survival, citing back to Gen 3:15. I appose any notion of such an understanding...

    Besides, this comes back to whether the complete Bible as we know it today includes all writings Jehovah wanted us to have or not.

    I'm with you when you say we can gain insight from Apocryphal books, such as the book of Maccabees. Clearly that book contains history and can be useful in matters such as the Maccabean Revolt.

    Now again, do we have a completed work Jehovah wants us to have to rely on, in the Bible? Where would one stop, the book of Mary, the book of Judas? It's my opinion that not many people have the ability to sift through the noise in order to pick out useful information outside the Bible, and in cases such as the book of Enoch, many have fallen into a degraded state of understanding.

    With that said, It is also important to recognize when the Bible does not go into a subject enough to give a proper understanding. Is the fact that the Bible only tells us of Michael the Arch-angel mean that he his the only one? And does Jesus speaking as an Arch-angel make him Michael? Is it important? Obviously we branched this conversation off to discuss whether Jesus had a pre-human existence, and that's where the completed works of the Bible come in. If one decides that the letters of Paul are not all inspired then one may decide that Jesus may not have had a pre-human existence, but conversely I believe that if one believes the Bible is a complete work, inspired, then one would have to conclude that Jesus returned from where he came.

    I believe the Bible as we have it today is complete, as to what Jehovah desires us to have, for in it is all we need for salvation, but as I have said, I have studied every text I could get my hands on, whether inside or out of the Bible, but I believe that such approach is very dangerous for most, I cannot tell you how many friends I have seen diverge off the straight and narrow path after so doing.

    Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that both understandings are correct, that Jesus both existed for the first time at his birth as a man, and had a prehuman existence. God's son would have given his life the moment Mary was pregnant, for he would have no longer existed in heaven, then becoming a new creation as Christ Jesus. He would have been created again into a third new existence after he gave his human life for mankind. Again, this is simply my interpretation...

    As for first century Jews and their understandings of the term Arch-angel, I think you said it best, some believed angels existed, and some did not, not unlike today, there are so many understandings that nothing can be drawn from some previous Jews who believed there were more then one Arch-angel, we have that today, some believe there are and some don't, and I believe we have more information then they did 2000 years ago. Don't get me wrong, sometimes that works, such as "No one knows the day or hour", the disciples would have understod Jesus was talking about Rosh Hashanah, but I would have to read specifically what you are talking about as to early Jews having an understanding of multiple Arch-angels, and how their understanding applies to the Bible as we have it today. I would have to read your source...

    I still haven't read anything that has swayed me, and still lean toward the Watchtowers explanation here;

    "Archangel.

    God’s Word refers to Michael “the archangel.” (Jude 9) This term means “chief angel.” Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term “archangel” occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural. Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.

    Army Leader.

    The Bible states that “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon . . . and its angels.” (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role." (JW.org)

    All Christian love brother...
     
  8. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I want to respond to your post, but can you define a little more what you mean here? I'm not sure what you meant by "deservedly treated with contempt by white man."

    Thanks...
     
  9. 2,510
    824
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hi Joshuastone,
    I believe xxxxx was quoting a statement by slave owners who used "deservedly so" for their reason of ownership.
     
  10. 2,510
    824
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Bible as written and handed down can be considered complete. The apocrypha may be of use for historical information, but we will have to rely on “uninspired” writers. When men write records of human activities it is questionable as to the veracity of the information. If we are having problems understanding the Bible, we should spend our time in prayer to Jehovah for a deeper understanding of His Word. I prefer spending that time in learning Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, rather than reading bogus information.

    The so-called book of Enoch reads like the book of Mormon. That is the first thing I recognized; the structure and phrasing. The book was supposedly translated from Ethiopic. As quoted from the forward: “The present book from the Ethiopic belongs to the second and first centuries B. C.”

    When I got to Chapter I, section II, verse 3, it says: “Behold the summer and the winter, how (in the winter season)* and dew and rain lie upon it” Whoa . . . Whoa Nelly! Let’s back up and look around. Wait a second!
    This is supposed to be written by Enoch? When? Before the flood? “And every shrub of the field was not yet on the earth, and every plant of the field had not yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.” (Gen 2:5) Well, if it didn’t rain, how did the plants grow? “And mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.” (Gen 2:6) Ohhhh. Well, where was Enoch at this time? He didn’t exist! Well, where was Enoch at the time of the flood? He didn’t exist! Some will say that God transferred him to heaven. That’s proof of the first rapture. (Gen 5:24)

    We will have to guess/assume that Noah inherited the book written by Enoch. Otherwise, how did this book survive the flood? What is strange about this, is the fact that Enoch was mentioned once in 1 Chronicles 1:3 and Luke 3:37, for genealogical purposes. The only other places he is mentioned are in Hebrews 11:5 speaking of his faith, and in Jude 1:14 as an example of Jehovah’s handling of ungodly men.

    If Enoch was to be used by Jehovah to write a record of the history of his time, I would expect the other writers, especially the prophets, to mention his written record. Nada!! It is bogus, and a waste of time that could be better spent in study of the inspired records. Did Jesus mention Enoch? Stay awake!

    * may have been added later. Otherwise it would read; “how the whole earth is full of water, and clouds . . . Etc.”
     
  11. 2,510
    824
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah! I did waste a lot of time researching these things. Looking backward, I could have been learning the good things, and I would be way ahead of where I am now! ;)
     
    Joshuastone7 likes this.
  12. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Of course your right, it was just one of those sentences I had to read a few times to gain the intent... :)

    I believe I understand where you are coming from xxxxxx, give me a bit to ponder your response on Michael before I comment.
     
  13. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

  14. 0
    0
    0
    Earthbound

    Earthbound Guest

    No worries and no hurries. After all, it took me weeks to finally buy out the time to reply. :eek:

    ~~Earthbound
     
  15. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Okay, here is where I believe the line is on this subject...

    Is there only one Arch-angel?

    The answer to that seems to be based on whether one believes the Bible as we have it is complete or not, for Apocrypha books such as the Tobit, that the Catholic church includes in their cannon would have us believe there are more then one.

    Is there a need for multiple Chief angels? Why the 24 elders, and why the 144k? After all it comes down to the jobs they are assigned to do, right?

    I want to offer a conceptualization of the reason such men as John were given the visions the way they had been, and I'll explain...

    Yes our Lord could end any conflict with a single word, but that doesn't seem to be the operation of things. All throughout history we see that matters are dealt with in a progressive way. Why was a flood brought to the earth, instead of just a word? Why weren't the fallen angels simply done away with instead of reserved for judgement? Why a battle in heaven? It's not that our Lord couldn't simply command in his position on Gods throne, but it seems to be a matter of process. A bit like at my job, I could save a lot of time by circumventing established processes however, it would be difficult to track the work that had been done, and the records serve to establish the work itself.

    I will add that it is interesting "when" the battle takes place in heaven according to my summation. I place it the moment Jesus is raised into heaven.

    Rev 12:5 "And her child was snatched away to God and to his throne."

    Rev 12:7 "And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven."

    It's as if the simple fact of our Lord accomplishing Jehovah's will was the loss of Satan's possition, and after our Lord accomplished his earthly mission, Jehovah's plan for redemption was complete from Gen 3:15 and Satan simply had no place in haven at that point.

    We might even consider (as it pertains to our perception) that this event was simply Satan being knocked off his high horse (as it were). We don't see or experience the heavenly realm, and that event is beyond our daily impressions, none the less, Rev 12 seems to be more a process of records, rather then a step by step map of how something was accomplished. We may think of it as being brought down to our level of comprehension, if you will...

    With that said, it doesn't bother me to imagine the text could still speak of Michael as Jesus if we are told of a battle, given it's possible the text is conceptualizing.

    I tend to agree with Tsaphah on extra Biblical text. We have seen so many of our brothers lost due to teachings of demons (as to degraded understandings, not that we judge salvation), that it's extremely dangerous to put stock in much of what we know is Apocryphal. I have read such works (as mentioned) and quite literally I have found very little useful information, and to be honest only the book of Maccabees has been of any use at all to me...

    I believe the Bible as we have it is sufficient for our salvation, and of course as we all know this matter is not one of salvation, but we enjoy the research, and no doubt angels peer into our conversations with like minded interest.

    There are very few subjects I wish to be dogmatic on, and as I have matured spiritually over the years, I have become more of a pragmatist, and have backed off from many points I once believed were salvational, as I continue to hope our Lord molds me. With that said I'll keep an open mind on the Arch-angel/Arch-angels but declare the Bible as the only true reliable source of information.

    PS: Please forgive writing errors, at work I get interrupted quite often, and it can be difficult to accomplish both.
     
    Regent Lessard likes this.
  16. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother, and let me extend to you again, that I appreciate your participation here.

    You must have imagined my response to your examples of extra Biblical source materials.

    Using your example of the Watchtower, even though they produce information based on scriptural reference, they are often wrong... Yes, for the masses they are considered "food at the proper time" and I might add in my opinion have brought many people into the courtyard of God, but none the less, as it pertains to the deeper things of God's word, they have faltered many times, as so have many. None of us (of course) are immune to this present condition, and miss the mark of true knowledge, often...

    Let me explain what I had in mind when I said "some have taken on a degraded state of understanding." I have known, and we have had members on this forum that were removed for teaching concepts found in the Enoch book that led them to believe that all genetic individuals from Ham are decedents of Satan, and do not fall under redemption by our Lords sacrifice. So then they say that an entire group of people with a different color skin then theirs are Satan's seed mentioned in Gen 3:15 and have no hope of survival. After attempting to direct these ones down a more Christ like approach, they refused to see their "degraded" understandings, and were removed from our company.

    Otherwise, I don't believe that anyone who leans on Apocryphal books for tidbits of information are being deceived per se, for even I appreciate the books of Maccabees, but to me it's all about how they apply that information to our established Bible.

    Anyways, let's leave that out for a moment...

    No worries brother, I'm willing to walk this road together with you until our Lord returns, and by then we may find the answer together, or one of us will crack.., either way, I enjoy this... :)

    So let's discuss the Bible on it's own, and allow me to reset my understandings from ground zero.

    Let me start with Dan;

    Dan 10:13 "But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there beside the kings of Persia." (NWT)

    Now, the first thing that comes to mind is, this verse does not use the word haś-śar or mal-awk', that means angel, but uses the word haś-śā-rîm which means "prince".

    Let's look at some different translations of this scripture. The very first two on BibleHub are the NIV and the NLT, notice their translations of haś-śā-rîm.

    New International Version
    "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."

    New Living Translation
    "But for twenty-one days the spirit prince of the kingdom of Persia blocked my way. Then Michael, one of the archangels, came to help me, and I left him there with the spirit prince of the kingdom of Persia."

    So, why do we connect the Greek word ἀρχαγγέλου "archangel" with haś-śā-rîm in the Hebrew text? Is it simply because of Jude 1:9?

    Jud 1:9 "But when Miʹcha·el the archangel (ἀρχαγγέλου) had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”

    The word ἀρχαγγέλου means a ruler of angels, a superior angel.

    The word used in the Hebrew text haś-śā-rîm, means prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain.

    Is ἀρχαγγέλου used for anyone else other then Michael in the New Testament?

    No...

    Is the word haś-śā-rîm used for anyone else other then Michael in the Old Testament?

    Yes...

    In fact the word is used in MANY locations in the Hebrew text denoting everything from man, beast and angels. Here is a link to such locations in the Hebrew text: (haś-śā-rîm)

    Now, (as you have pointed out Earthbound) according to Dan 10:13 Michael is "one of" the foremost haś-śā-rîm;

    Dan 10:13 "But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes,"

    The next thing I think about are those translations like the NLV that translate haś-śā-rîm as archangel. Is the same meaning intended as is described in the Greek ἀρχαγγέλου? I don't think so... There is no way that haś-śā-rîm is intended to denote a supreme ruling individual in Hebrew, one ruling over all other rulers. Hebrew uses this term to denote any number of ruling entities, multiples even that are equal to each other.

    Now conversely, does the Greek text use ἀρχαγγέλου to describe anyone other then Michael? No, no it doesn't... So therefore people have connected these two words in a combined meaning simply because they depict the same individual, but does this take into factor any possible changes in that individuals status? Let's say for example someone was to translate Daniel's writings from Hebrew to the Babylonian tongue or their Semitic language, and this translation was done just after Daniel had gone from one of the priests, to the ruling priest. It is possible that those who were Babylonian might believe that Daniel had always held his current position, if he was a ruling priest, he was a ruling priest, but not recognizing the change in position, due to two different languages.

    So what am I gleaning from this? Just taking this information empirically, I would say what we are looking at is Michael with two different positions, one in the Old Testament, and another in the New Testament. What I am seeing is in the OT we see Michael as a chieftain, as in plural, one of, who became "the ruling angel" in the NT.

    After this study I believe the true understanding of haś-śā-rîm and ἀρχαγγέλου is, ἀρχαγγέλου rules haś-śā-rîm, and while there are many haś-śā-rîm, there is only one ἀρχαγγέλου.

    Jud 1:9 "But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you."

    If you believe Michael was the pre-human Jesus, then you would take this information as he was a ruling angel before his earthly life, and then THE ruling angel after...
     
  17. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    A fair assumption that I don't wish to contradict, other then my disdain for some of the notions presented in that book, and it's questionable origins.

    Either way, such is a matter of opinion and not worth our debate, we both agree on it's (and other Apocryphal text) use, and our reliance on it with careful objectiveness only, as it pertains to the established Bible.

    We agree on this, but I do offer a sense of caution when this subject comes up in conversation, it's just my established response. For as I've said, I've seen grave danger in understanding from those who don't take greater caution in so doing, or that may lack a certain level of objectiveness.

    And that's exactly what I am seeing, a complete difference between an angel being a ruling prince, and an angel being the ruler of angels. It appears to me at this moment that "archangel" did not exist in the OT. Hence why you would have had first century Jews who believed there were many ruling angels, for that's exactly what the Hebrew text says, but does the Greek word "archangel" mean one of many ruling angels? I say no... I'm reading that archangel in the Greek means a singular ruler of all angels and princes, heavenly or earthly, including any princes from the OT, and the only way that could have happened is Michael's position changed between the OT and NT, one of a ruling chieftain among many (albeit a high ranking official) to one that is absolute ruler of all other rulers in the NT as THE archangel, second of course to Jehovah.

    The terminology is always the difficult part of translation... But my intent is to denote that archangel is "the" ruler of angels, while prince in the OT is "a" ruler, man or angel. They do not have the same meaning at all, while of course very close, there is a distinct difference. The Archangel rules over the princes.

    Exactly, and that is what I am saying is the definition of archangel.

    If some felt that way, I believe they were wrong, they should have known from the Hebrew text that the one coming that they were expecting was from the heavenly realm. (The Word)

    I know you'll object to this, but this may be a different subject then we are discussing here, where I could go into great detail why this is my opinion, I'll leave it alone for the sake of staying on topic.

    You quote Heb 1:4-6 which just enforces my understanding that he would have had a change in positions from his previous life, and after his accomplished earthly role. Given a higher rank then the angels would be going from a prince to the archangel.

    "The", singular;

    Jud 1:9 "But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body"

    This is the only explanation that allows for no paradoxes.

    Regardless if you believe Michael is Jesus, separating that idea out for a moment, Michael appears to have changed rank from the OT to the NT. I believe it should be obvious that the Hebrew text uses a word translated "prince" that is holey different then archangel in the NT.

    That's where 1th 4:16 comes into play.

    1Th 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."

    It appears to me the Lord is telling you he had a pre-human existence brother. His being given a position higher then the angels is his becoming THE archangel. That is the definition... And that seems to be the reason this journey is in the scriptures, so that if this subject ever came up, we could take the walk through to show that in fact Michael is Jesus, and he had a pre-human existence.

    Gabriel comes to mind...

    Sure, and Michael/Jesus would have been one of the chief angels, and I haven't see anything to denote the exact heavenly structure as it pertains to hierarchy, for we could even bring up the 24 elders who wear crowns. There doesn't appear to be enough information in scripture to tell us the exact structure of heavenly positions, and rankings from Jehovah to the least in heaven.

    I don't find in scripture that Satan was a Cherub, nor that they are over princes, nor that Satan would have continued to hold such a position after his apostasy. So in my opinion such information is useless, and untenable in this conversation.

    Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of the Jewish holiday Hanukkah, even though the only place such a festival is mentioned is in the books of Maccabees.

    So again, we start the debate back down the road of allowing, or not allowing extra Biblical text to influence what the Bible may or may not include.

    Let me quote someone else, because I believe currently his explanation is on par with mine;

    " The book of Jude is a powerful little treatise that warns the children of God of the dangers of apostasy from the faith (contrary to the claims of some, that a Christian can never so fall from grace as to be lost eternally). Concerning the divine judgment that is to come upon those who abandon the truth, Jude cites a precedent from antiquity.

    “And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their works of ungodliness which they have wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’” (Jude 14-15).

    At the beginning, let the following point be emphasized. In logic there is a concept known as “the law of rationality.” Simply stated it is this: One should draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. To go further, is to abuse the evidence.

    Now note carefully the actual facts that are set forth in this passage. There was a man of the early earth whose name was Enoch. He was the seventh generation from Adam, the first man (1 Cor. 15:45). Enoch uttered a prophecy of judgment against ungodly people who had spoken against God.

    Observe further, by way of contrast, what is not contained in this text. Nothing is said about a “book of Enoch.” There is no phrase such as, “it is written in the book of Enoch.” Nothing at all is indicated about any literary production.

    Having established this, let us now note some data about the extra-biblical work that is called the Book of Enoch.

    The Book of Enoch is a composite work of several authors that dates from the last two centuries before Christ. It consists of five divisions which are further segmented into 108 chapters. Its original language was either Hebrew or Aramaic — perhaps both; eventually it was translated into Greek. Some eleven fragments of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea scrolls collection. The Book of Enoch contains a passage very similar to the one cited in the book of Jude.

    Some of the early church writers (e.g., Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian) viewed the Book of Enochas being virtually inspired, inasmuch as they assumed that the document was quoted by Jude, and that such would suggest its divine character.

    On the other hand, later, when the Book of Enoch fell into considerable disfavor (being classified as pseudepigrapha [literally, false writing], others, also assuming that Jude had quoted from that narrative, questioned the inspiration of his little book (see Jerome’s reference in De. Vir. ill. 4).

    What is the Christian to make of this matter today? Here are some facts that may help to clarify the issue.

    There is nothing in the sacred text that identifies the actual origin of Jude’s quotation. Enoch’s original message was from God. It is entirely possible that the prophet Enoch may have been quoted directly by Jude, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—since the prophecy is not contained in the Old Testament.

    This is not without precedent in Scripture. Paul once quoted the Lord Jesus, though the quotation he employed is nowhere recorded in the Gospel narratives; cf. Acts 20:35.)

    No one can prove, therefore, that Jude’s text was taken from the “Book of Enoch.”

    Further, it is likely that the quotation in the Book of Enoch reflects the echo of an ancient tradition that has its roots in the events of the Patriarchal period and that the inspiration of Jude, and the tradition of the Book of Enoch, merely merge at this juncture.

    Even if Jude had quoted from the Book of Enoch that would not establish the inspiration of the latter work. Paul quoted from several Greek writers, e.g., Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), and Epimenides (Tit. 1:12), yet no one contends that the apostle’s use of these quotes endowed the original classical works with the aura of divine inspiration.

    Furthermore, the ad hominem use of a quotation from an uninspired source does not negate the inspiration of the one who uses it — if there is evidence otherwise that establishes the sacred character of the message he is presenting. The argument just cited relative to Paul’s citations from the classics equally establishes this truth.

    A Controversy Without Consequence
    In conclusion, therefore, we must note that the controversy over Jude’s quotation actually is of no vital consequence.

    First, we simply do not know the immediate source of Jude’s quotation. Second, it does not matter about the immediate source of the quote.

    Enoch’s original affirmation, and Jude’s subsequent employment of the quote, represent all of the authority that is needed to acknowledge the genuineness of the ancient, holy warning."

    (Source)

    I might object to your use of "archangel" here, I believe the differences between prince and archangel are enough that one cannot translate prince (in the OT) into archangel, and that the archangel did not exist until the NT. So Jesus would never had been an archangel in the OT, for there was no such thing.

    I would say that some understandings of Gods word would not have been understood till the time of the end. It has been my opinion that even in our day we have discovered concepts in scripture that have been left misunderstood for thousands of years, only to be discovered today. So to me I don't rely on what early Christians understood, although just like any discussion I have today, I am all ears! :)

    Wouldn't this scripture more so indicate that Jesus did in fact exist before he was a man? I find it more of a paradox to imagine he did not exist previously given that text, then to imagine "glory" was not meant as a position, after all, Jesus becomes God at this point, second only to Jehovah, so regardless, his job in heaven was going to be different then his previous, he was to sit on Jehovah's throne, not just continue as one of the princes.
     
  18. 95
    69
    18
    Regent Lessard

    Regent Lessard New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Hi, Joshua. I was reading the Forum between you and Earthbound and came across a crossfire and you said "I don't find in the scripture that Satan was a "Cherub" What about the Bible text in Eze 28:13-15 vs 14 "Thou art the anointed "Cherub" that covereth ; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stone of fire. KJ. I know it is not the soul of the subject that is discussed in this post but still, it was in it. ... "that there may be an interchange of encouragement among you, by each one through the other's faith, both Yours and mind. Ro 1:12
     
  19. 3,812
    736
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    736
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    I stand corrected brother! :) Thank you...

    I was going on about how we don't have a list of rankings from Jehovah to the lowliest angel, and missed that.

    Thank you again... That's what this forums all about, I've learned to enjoy when I'm wrong, it means I'm one step closer to the truth!
     
    Regent Lessard likes this.
  20. 2,510
    824
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, this took me a while to decide to get into this. Talk about distractions! I have too many to list right now. But, . . . here goes nothing.


    The USA has several “chiefs” of different departments. In the White House there is a “chief of staff”. He answers to the President. Then, the President is the “Commander in Chief”. In this sense he can be considered the Archperson, because he is Commander of all military branches of the USA. When we consider Michael, he is chief of warriors. He was also the protector of the nation of Israel.

    The Bible never refers to other angels (messengers) as Archangels. The angels (messengers) were created to perform specific duties. There are only two angels named in the bible; Gabriel and Michael. Of course there is also Satan, but satan is not considered a name, noun. It is a primary verb, stating an action; to be or act as an adversary, resist, oppose. It is translated 5 times in Psalms as “oppose, adversaries, accusers, (Ps 38:20, 71:13, 109:4, 109:20, 109:29), and once as accuse in Zechariah. (Zec 3:1)

    We find that Gabriel was a true messenger. He was sent by Jehovah to tell Daniel that his prayers were answered. (Dan 10:10-14) This is where we learn of the angel named Michael. (Dan 10:13) But, Michael is not said to be an archangel. He is identified as “one of the chief princes”. In Aramaic it is 'echad ri’shown sar = one first prince-ruler-leader-chief. Here is the most interesting thing about the translation. The Aramaic/Hebrew use of ri’shown (ree-shone’) has the meaning of first, primary, first in time, foremost, chief (in degree), at first. The word archangel is Greek, meaning chief angel.

    We know that angels can materialize with human-like bodies. Some are identified by the viewer as “God”. (Gen 32:30; Jud 13:32)

    See: Comments by C. Fred Dickason: https://www.gotquestions.org/names-of-angels.html
    He has some interesting thoughts. I agree with some, but not all.

     
    Regent Lessard likes this.

Share This Page