Was Jesus Michael or God?

[donnann]

Do you think jesus was god or michael? 2 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” 5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?”
7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time.[b] When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”
8 I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?”
9 He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.
13 “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.” This quote clearly says Michael the archangel will deliver the people. So was jesus michael or god?

 

[Thomas]

So was jesus michael or god?

Angels don't act on their own volition,
they act according to the Divine Will.

God originates,
angels administrate.

Michael is an angel.
Angels are not God.

 

[wil]

Angels don't act on their own volition,
they act according to the Divine Will.

God originates,
angels administrate.

Michael is an angel.
Angels are not God.

Interesting Thomas.... In your mind/belief system... are angels beings? entitities? Anthropomorphized?

Literal? Metaphorical?

 

[donnann]

Angels don't act on their own volition,
they act according to the Divine Will.

God originates,
angels administrate.

Michael is an angel.
Angels are not God.

Angels have free will. Look at the account of the fall of lucifer. If angels only acted according to divine will the fall would have never occurred. My point is that some says jesus the man was god incarnated. Others say he was Michael the Archangel. I know angels are not god.

 

[Thomas]

Angels have free will.

The higher angels, yes.

Look at the account of the fall of lucifer.

Where? The only reference we have is from Luke:
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven," (Luke 10:18-20).

The Early Fathers linked this to the Hebrew Scriptures, seeing a similar reference in Isaiah and Ezekiel. Although the prophets were talking about the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre respectively (and not Satan). The Hebrew view of The Adversary is quite different from that of Jesus.

The Greek fathers saw these texts as metaphor (they saw everything as metaphor). In both cases pride was the cause of the fall (as it was in the case of Adam and Eve), and this sin is imputed to Satan/Lucifer as the ontological cause of evil, but this is not the case in the Hebrew tradition, and we're misreading the text if we assume it is.

Remember that Jesus Himself is also referred to as 'the day star' (2 Peter 1:19, Revelation 22:16). It's a literary device, and must be read in context to be prioperly understood.

If angels only acted according to divine will the fall would have never occurred.

Not with angels, not with man. Sadly however, that is not the case.

My point is that some says jesus the man was god incarnated.

Yes, that's correct.

Others say he was Michael the Archangel.

Well you do, I'm not sure who else does? And why? There's absolutely no reason to think so. That's not what the Apostles thought, nor the Fathers after them, so Im not sure how modern this idea is?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The higher angels, yes.

How do the Catholics discuss the angels? Do they consider them to be in a strict hierarchy with many different titles? Or is that a metaphor for something else?

 

[donnann]

The higher angels, yes.


Where? The only reference we have is from Luke:
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven," (Luke 10:18-20).

The Early Fathers linked this to the Hebrew Scriptures, seeing a similar reference in Isaiah and Ezekiel. Although the prophets were talking about the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre respectively (and not Satan). The Hebrew view of The Adversary is quite different from that of Jesus.

The Greek fathers saw these texts as metaphor (they saw everything as metaphor). In both cases pride was the cause of the fall (as it was in the case of Adam and Eve), and this sin is imputed to Satan/Lucifer as the ontological cause of evil, but this is not the case in the Hebrew tradition, and we're misreading the text if we assume it is.

Remember that Jesus Himself is also referred to as 'the day star' (2 Peter 1:19, Revelation 22:16). It's a literary device, and must be read in context to be prioperly understood.


Not with angels, not with man. Sadly however, that is not the case.


Yes, that's correct.


Well you do, I'm not sure who else does? And why? There's absolutely no reason to think so. That's not what the Apostles thought, nor the Fathers after them, so Im not sure how modern this idea is?

The mormons and jehovah witnesses believe jesus was michael the archangel incarnated. Daniel 12 says that michael will stand up, that is a resurrection, and all those who are written in the book(book of life in revelation) will be delivered. This is, in my opinion, an end time prophecy that has not been fulfilled yet but clearly shows michael has a hand in end time salvation.
All intelligent beings have free will. Since all angels are intelligent beings they have free will, not just higher angels.

 

[donnann]

How do the Catholics discuss the angels? Do they consider them to be in a strict hierarchy with many different titles? Or is that a metaphor for something else?

I am catholic and catholics believe that angels are literal beings that exist. For example Michael is the head of all of gods angels, basically his right hand man and is literally the firstborn of all the angels. If you do catholic study on michael when lucifer fell from heaven the battle cry was who is like god. Ironically the name Michael means one who is like god as well as meaning who is like god from the hebrew to english translation. Gabriel who is also an archangel has the function of proclaiming the fulfillment of gods prophecies. He was said to have told Mary that she was going to have Jesus. If you would like theological references I will be happy to provide them. The Catholic encyclopedia online has a lot of information in it to show the catholic belief about angels.

 

[arthra]

In Baha'i belief Jesus was a Manifestation of God ... The attributes of God were perfectly reflected in Him so anyone who wanted to know more about God at the time would turn to Jesus.. but He Himself was not the essence of God.

For Baha'is "angels" are holy souls..

"By angels is meant the divine confirmations and heavenly powers. Angels are also those holy souls who have severed attachment to the earthly world, who are free from the fetters of self and passion and who have attached their hearts to the divine realm and the merciful kingdom..."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 409

 

[Thomas]

Daniel 12 says that michael will stand up, that is a resurrection...

I rather think you're conflating two separate elements of the text:
"But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people... " (12:1).
So I read 'rise up' to mean champion or lead.

Of course, Daniel can have no knowledge of the coming of Christ, so we have to look to the New Testament to sort out the angelology.
But as Our Lord is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, then it's obvious that Michael, as an archangle, takes his orders from Him.

"... And at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book" (12:1).
Michael will lead the archangels, as directed by Christ, but this is in line with the Hebrew notion of angels as messengers and servants of God. He, of course, can have no knowledge of Christ.

"And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach... " (12:2).
Judaism has very little to say about eschatology, other than 'who knows, really?'. The idea of a general resurrection was not unknown, but then the tendency is not to get carried away by speculation.

This is, in my opinion, an end time prophecy that has not been fulfilled yet but clearly shows michael has a hand in end time salvation.

All the angels will be involved.

All intelligent beings have free will. Since all angels are intelligent beings they have free will, not just higher angels.

OK, but there are the spirits of nature who belong to the angelic orders in the sense that they are beings of pure spirit and not matter, but who do not possess a rational intellect and therefore do not possess a free will.

 

[Thomas]

How do the Catholics discuss the angels?

Well, you'd have to separate the theology from the sentimentality.

Catholic angelology is founded primarily on the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, in whom the 'Nine Choirs of Angels' are presented in his work 'The Celestial Hierarchy'.

St Thomas developed this tradition quite extensively Questions 50-64 of the Summa Theologicae are given over to the discussion of angels.

The Catholic Tradition tends to treat of them as spiritual beings. The Orthodox tends more to beings of pure intellect (although St Thomas would argue effectively the same):

He who worships God mystically with the faculty of the intelligence alone, keeping it free from sensual desire and anger, fulfils the divine will on earth just as the orders of angels fulfil it in heaven...
He has become in all things a co-worshipper and fellow-citizen with the angels, conforming to St Paul’s statement, ‘Our citizenship is in heaven’ (Phil. 3:20)...
Among the angels desire does not sap the intellect’s intensity through sensual pleasure, nor does anger make them rave and storm indecently at their fellow creatures...
there is only the intelligence naturally leading intelligent beings towards the source of intelligence, the Logos Himself... (St Maximus the Confessor, Commentary on The Lord's Prayer)

St Thomas' title of 'Common and Angelic Doctor' points to two things: He wrote in simple Latin, so that he could be easily understood — common (although his ideas themselves are so complex they are still subject to speculative interpretation), and he wrote so much about angels that many assumes he converses with them as a matter of course — hence angelic.

His contemporary, St Bonaventure, is known as the Seraphic Doctor, from his most influential The Journey of the Mind to God. The journey follows the route first charted by St. Augustine: from the exterior world to the interior mind, from human mind to the divine mind, namely, to God.

(St Thomas and St Bonaventure, a Dominican and Fransciscan respectively, were teaching at the university at Paris together. What a choice confronting the student of theology!)

Bonaventure's journey is an allegory based on the six wings of the Seraph, and he arranged his text into seven chapters.

The lower wings of the Seraph signify God seen through the 'imprint' (vestigia) in the material world that point to Him, and the 'signs' found in the senses.

The mid wings signify seeing God in His 'image', that is, there are certain signs visible to the intellect that point to God. Bonaventure distinguishes those signs found in the natural exercise of the mind in theoretical knowledge from those in its exercise in the practical sphere 'reformed by grace' (c. 4).

The higher wings signify seeing God in Himself, first in the way the infused reason sees God as having one divine nature (a knowing), and then, higher still, as faith sees God (a participation) in the Trinity.

These three sets of two culminate in the 'mental and mystical transport' found at the journey's end.

But if you really want to get to grips with angels, it's St Thomas all the way.

Three things in closing:
Contrary to popular opinion, no-one in the medieval era ever speculated on how many angels could balance on the head of a needle. That's a piece of nonsense put about later by bored university professors. (Another naughty rumour was that the mediaeval mind thought the world was flat).

The other is that St Thomas argues that each and every angel must necessarily be its own species — that is, there are as many species of angels as there are angels.

Lastly, my own addition is speculative. Angels are intellectual immaterial beings, but there must also be 'irrational' immaterial beings – not mad, but not possessed of a rational and discursive intellect — so there may well be mineral-spirits, flora-spirits, fauna-spirits, and so forth. (I would argue the healing pool in John 5 signifies such.)

 

[donnann]

I rather think you're conflating two separate elements of the text:
"But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people... " (12:1).
So I read 'rise up' to mean champion or lead.

Of course, Daniel can have no knowledge of the coming of Christ, so we have to look to the New Testament to sort out the angelology.
But as Our Lord is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, then it's obvious that Michael, as an archangle, takes his orders from Him.

"... And at that time shall thy people be saved, every one that shall be found written in the book" (12:1).
Michael will lead the archangels, as directed by Christ, but this is in line with the Hebrew notion of angels as messengers and servants of God. He, of course, can have no knowledge of Christ.

"And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach... " (12:2).
Judaism has very little to say about eschatology, other than 'who knows, really?'. The idea of a general resurrection was not unknown, but then the tendency is not to get carried away by speculation.


All the angels will be involved.


OK, but there are the spirits of nature who belong to the angelic orders in the sense that they are beings of pure spirit and not matter, but who do not possess a rational intellect and therefore do not possess a free will.

A standing up is a resurrection. This would clearly indicate that those to be saved are somehow sealed to Michael and when he stands up they enter the kingdom of heaven with the action of standing up. I can see where you would think it means a rising up in a type of stand off with the fallen angels. If you do advanced studies it clearly means a resurrection of sorts. The phrase the people shall be delivered clearly shows him being a savior or deliverer. The resurrection occurs by the power of god. The bible clearly states 21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE]'s.
this indicates that god has sent more than one saviour over time. This could confirm Michael being one of them. Moses was one. Noah was one. Rev 15 ¶ And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
3 And they sing the song of Moses Ex. 15.1 the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.Angelic beings have to incarnate into the human egg for the purpose of salvation and are always identified by seal openings and bindings. One sign is the sign of jonah which is a resurrection of the human body to a big giant spirit and then sealed back down into the human condition.

 

[radarmark]

Thomas, how about "non-rational immaterial beings"? The pool is a good example (once... if I remember correctly... you take the angel stirring out). So are the various pillars of fire and sand and, perhaps, the opponent.

 

[Thomas]

A standing up is a resurrection.

Not in the contxet of Daniel 12 its not:
"But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people"
The subject of the verb is Michael, not the people.

If you're right, then Michael is resurrected for the people, who remain dead (and bearing in mind angels do not die, then the question is moot).

This would clearly indicate that those to be saved are somehow sealed to Michael and ...

Really? Are you baptised in the name of Michael?

And you call yourself a Catholic? Where does Jesus say you need the seal of Michael to be saved? I wonder if you realise how much heresy you've drifted into.

The phrase the people shall be delivered clearly shows him being a savior or deliverer.

S'funny ... I thought Jesus was. Someone should have told Him, it would have saved Him a lot of fuss and bother.

Angels are just messengers ... that's what the word means.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, how about "non-rational immaterial beings"?

Better! And hey ... where have you been?

So are the various pillars of fire and sand and, perhaps, the opponent.

Yup ... although I would put the opponent in a class of his own (if we're thinking about the same thing). I think he's more egregore than elemental.

 

[radarmark]

Been overseas on business (do not do the web if you are overseas even if you are a citizen of the USA)... and reading a lot. Thanks for asking.

We are thinking of the same Opponent... very non-rational as I see it. Now, if we get into who or what he is, it gets really complex. Rather I prefer to see him in terms of y'arib, "he who is the adversary".

A very nebulous term in Jewish lore. Closer to the elementals than I think most of us believe. Egregore is a curious usage... need to think about that one. Is the Opponent a product of group-think? Does he influence group minds?

Interesting.

 

[donnann]

Not in the contxet of Daniel 12 its not:
"But at that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people"
The subject of the verb is Michael, not the people.

If you're right, then Michael is resurrected for the people, who remain dead (and bearing in mind angels do not die, then the question is moot).


Really? Are you baptised in the name of Michael?

And you call yourself a Catholic? Where does Jesus say you need the seal of Michael to be saved? I wonder if you realise how much heresy you've drifted into.


S'funny ... I thought Jesus was. Someone should have told Him, it would have saved Him a lot of fuss and bother.

Angels are just messengers ... that's what the word means.

About 16 or 17 years ago whenever I did research on the bible I found the quote and michael will stand up. It seems the internet is now flooded with a quote and michael will rise up. The following is the original quote.
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.


- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

 

[Thomas]

... About 16 or 17 years ago whenever I did research on the bible I found the quote and michael will stand up. It seems the internet is now flooded with a quote and michael will rise up.

The KJV is not the best text for scholarly study. It's a wonderful translation, but it's written for the heart and soul, not the head ... K. James wanted a text in English that was lyrical and poetic, not necessarily technically accurate.

In the Hebrew the verb is amad – to stand:
1) to stand, take one's stand, be in a standing attitude, stand forth, take a stand, present oneself, attend upon, be or become servant of
2) to stand still, stop (moving or doing), cease
3) to tarry, delay, remain, continue, abide, endure, persist, be steadfast
4) to make a stand, hold one's ground
5) to stand upright, remain standing, stand up, rise, be erect, be upright
6) to arise, appear, come on the scene, stand forth, appear, rise up or against
7) to stand with, take one's stand, be appointed, grow flat, grow insipid

In the KJV the verb is variously translated as:
stood 171 (times), stand 137, raise, stand... up 42, set 32, stay 17, still 15, appointed 10, standing 10, endure 8, remain 8, present 7, continue 6, withstand 6, waited 5, establish 5 — but not 'resurrect'.

What is the deal with Micheal, anyway?

Don't get me wrong, he's an archangel and a heavy-hitter, and when I was doing my studies, we said the prayer to St Michael daily, after the Liturgy:
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

But Christ alone saves, and anything an archangel does, he does because Christ wills it.

Remember that although Daniel is considered prophetic (and the scholars are divided over how much actual prophecy there was), he knew nothing of Christ, and at the End Times, Christ will be directing things personally.

 

[radarmark]

The spectre of Christ Jesus in Daniel or Baruch has oft puzzled me. While I can accept the reading into Baruch, since it is not part of the Tanakh, Daniel is a problem. It was written down by Jews for Jews, probably in the late BCE era in response to the Seleucid razing of the Temple. Like Job, it was likely one of the final OT texts to be accepted and a teaching text (used to justify the Maqabim).

I do not see any verbiage to really justify the Fundamentalist point-of-view, the language does not support a Babylonian era composition.

However, like Revelation, it can be interpreted (because of its form) as a prophetic text... interestingly its roots are a little older than what scholars thought 100 years ago. But if Revelation is likely the esoteric version of early Christian Asia Minor, then Daniel is likely the esoteric version of Mithradates-Antiochus.

Where do you and your tradition stand on it?

 

[Thomas]

... and reading a lot. Thanks for asking.

Purely selfish. I need my science fix, and you and New Scientist are it!

We are thinking of the same Opponent... very non-rational as I see it.

Hmmm ... irrational, perhaps, but there must be an element of rationality. If there's no rationalist, there can be no accusation of evil.

Evil belongs in the moral sphere, and is the wilful decision to serve a 'lesser good', or go against the good, in pursuit of some other end (which might well be one's own immediate good in the sense of gratification). People tend to forget that when they argue the necessity of evil, or try and give it a positive or beneficial value.

I always recall the artist Bill Viola being shown a collection of Buddhist demon statuary in a museum in Japan. "Where do they all come from?" he mused. His Buddhist guide reached forward and tapped him on the chest. "In there," he said.

Now, if we get into who or what he is, it gets really complex.

I'll say ... but the source is twofold, pride and envy.

Is the Opponent a product of group-think? Does he influence group minds?

I think the 'person' of the Opponent is the product of human activity, certainly, and most of that from the rather fervid imaginations of the Medieval era. Dante has a lot to answer for!

But there was something there prior, in a created rational nature. The serpent cannot tempt the Primordial Couple if they haven't the capacity to be tempted, or to defy God.

It's the price of freedom and autonomy, really, like the possibility of making the wrong decision. (A wrong decision is not necessarily evil.) A potentiality to defy nature and, in the end, defy God.

By defy nature, I do not mean like trying to fly. But if one aeronaut sabotages the flying rig of another, that is evil.

Is evil a tendency? I don't think so, although the Seven Deadly Sins are there in all of us as a potentiality. (Someone (a perennialist) did a nice piece once on how the 7DS are determined by spatiotemporal conditions.)

Philosophy (and Catholic theology) tend to argue that man is not evil by nature (as our Protestant cousins seem to think), and that the good tends towards the good.

They say money is the root of all evil, which is somewhat inaccurate. It's pride. Pride and its product, envy.