The Instigator
secret_strategem
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
cjhill
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Jesus is Michael the Archangel

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
secret_strategem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,894 times Debate No: 36732
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

secret_strategem

Pro

I will be taking the position that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. My opponent must prove that this is an erroneous postulation.

Rules:

As a control measure and to keep it simple, only the KJV bible may be used. If the opponent wishes to show an alternate translation, the KJV translation must also be included beside. I am not saying KJV is favours my position, I would just like to reduce confusion. :)

We must both accept the possibility we are wrong. This will eliminate arrogance and will allow truth to win, not opinion. :)

You must be a Christian.

You must be willing to stick out the debate for the whole duaration.

No trolls.

Round 1 - Statements of position, definitions and points. No refutations

Round 2 + 3 - Refutations

Round 4 - One final refutation of one of the opponents points, then a rehash of own points.

Definitions:

Jesus Christ - the self existent son of God. Fully God and fully man. The savior of the human race.

Angel - a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, a messenger from God [1]

Point 1 - Angel means "messenger", not necessarily a created winged seraphim, cherubim etc.

In the Bible, the translated words for angel are the Greek word angelos and the Hebrew malak mean 'messenger'. Thus in the Bible, David and Paul are referred to as a angels. 1 Samuel 29:9 & Galatians 4:14.

This means that calling Jesus the "archangel" is not to call him a created being, but rather a chief messenger. Indeed, that is what "archangel" directly translates to:

"arch" = chief

"ángel" = messenger

Notice also the "Michael" translates to "who is like God" [2]. So the full translation of the title is "Chief Messenger who is like God"

Point 2 - Jacob was redeemed by an angel.

When Jacob was on the lam from Esau he wrestled with the angel of the Lord. Jacob called the place Peniel which means "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis 32:30). Also, in the Bible, it is only ever God who changes someones name in a holy context (e.g. Abram to Abraham etc.), yet this angel gives Jacob a new name… "Israel."

When Jacob was blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, he uses the terms "angel" and "God" interchangeably.

"God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads" Genesis 28:15,16.

No one but God can redeem. It is thus clear that Jesus can take the name of "angel." Jesus is not a created being, but he is the chief message deliverer.

Point 3 - God is the angel in the burning bush.

Exodus 3:2-4 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked , and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed . And Moses said , I will now turn aside , and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt . And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see , God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said , Moses, Moses. And he said , Here am I.

Notice who is in the "midst of the bush." The angel (messenger), God.

Point 4 - “The Lord rebuke thee”

Zechariah 3:1-2 “And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?”

Notice how the “angel of the Lord” and “the LORD” are used interchangeably? And notice the Lords statement “The LORD rebuke thee.” This is seen in only one other place in the Bible, Jude 9, and guess who says it... Michael the archangel!

Jude 9 "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee"

It is very common for Jesus to speak of himself in the second person (Luke 18:8)

Point 5 - Michael the Prince

Michael is mentioned in the book of Daniel more than anywhere else. (Dan 10:13,21 12:1) In these places he is referred to as “the prince”, “your prince” and “great prince”.

Daniel 10:21"But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."

Notice here that the angel refers to Michael as your Prince. Who was Daniel’s prince? In the previous chapter, we see the answer.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Daniel’s Messiah is called the prince, which is another clear indication of Michael’s identity! So Gabriel is saying that Michael the archangel is Jesus, who knows all the truth of Scripture.

Daniel 12:1 "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people."

Michael is not called a great prince but "the great prince." There is no prince greater than Jesus. He is also identified as the one who "standeth for the children of thy people." This means that He intercedes, defends and even stands as a substitute. This can only be Jesus.

Point 6 - The Voice of the Archangel

1 Thessalonians 4:16 “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:”

It is the voice of the archangel that raises the dead (angels do not have the creative power to raise the dead), and the Lord himself who shouts it. They are the same entity.

Point 7 - The Commander of the Lords Army

In Revelation 12:7 it is clear that Michael is the leader of the angelic army that apposes Lucifer. This leader appears also in Joshua 5:14-15 “And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so"

In all other places where regular angels appear to humans and they worship them, the angles do not accept the worship (e.g. Rev 19:10), but this one, “the captain of the Lord’s host,” does. Why? Because, as God, he is worthy.

Conclusion: When looked at completly, it is evident that Micheal is a name for Jesus Christ, sometimes refered to as the angle of the Lord. What a lovely thought, that God did not wait 4,000 years to intervine into human affairs, but has always been here for us.

I look foreword to seeing my opponents points :)

[1]http://www.biblestudytools.com......

[2]http://www.biblestudytools.com......

[3] http://www.amazingfacts.org......


cjhill

Con

Statement of position: To maintain or assert that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ is an erroneous postulation.

Definitions:

Jesus Christ - the self existent son of God. Fully God and fully man. The savior of the human race. - ACCEPTED
Angel - a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, a messenger from God. - ACCEPTED

Point 1 - The Son is distinct from angelic beings.

In Hebrews 1:5-8, we see that the writer shows the superiority of Jesus over the angelic beings, and contrasts Him with them.

5 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.

Notice how the writer of Hebrews indicats that God commands all angels (including Michael) to worship Jesus. Clearly, Jesus' superiority to the angels implies a distinction.

Point 2 - Angels do not accept worship.

Angels do not accept worship, but rather preach the worship of God, and no other. In Revelation 19:10 the apostle John fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who had revealed to him the message of Revelation, and the angel responded, saying

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Angels, idols, and humans are all unworthy of the reverent worship that is due only to God.

Point 3 - Jesus accepted worship.

The Bible is replete with examples of Jesus accepting worship from mankind.

Matthew 14:33 indicates that those who saw Jesus walk on water “worshiped Him.”
John 9:38 reveals that the blind man whom Jesus had healed, later confessed his belief in Jesus as the Son of God and “worshiped him.” After Mary Magdalene and the other women visited the empty tomb of Jesus, and the risen Christ appeared to them, “they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him” (Matthew 28:9). When Thomas first witnessed the resurrected Christ, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Later, when Jesus appeared to the apostles in Galilee, “they worshiped Him” on a mountain (Matthew 28:17). A few days after that, His disciples “worshiped Him” in Bethany (Luke 24:52).

Time and again Jesus accepted the kind of praise from men that is due only to God. He never sought to correct His followers, and redirect the worship away from Himself as did the angel in Revelation.

Point 4 - The world to come is not subject to angels.

The writer of Hebrews returned to the subject of Jesus’ superiority over angels in chapter two, saying,
"For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak"[Hebrews 2:5].

To whom will the world be in subjection? Scripture indicates that it would be Jesus

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds"[Hebews 1:2];
Indeed, all authority has been given, not to any angel, but to Jesus, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth"[Matthew 28:18].

Finally, Peter echoes the same idea with

"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him"[1 Peter 3:22]

Point 5 - Angels cannot judge Satan

Apparently, Michael could not judge Satan

"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."[Jude 1:9]

That is, Michael did not dare pronounce a railing judgment against the devil because of what we read in the second book of Peter, "Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord[2 Peter 2:11]

On the other hand, Jesus once declared about Satan

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."[John 8:44]

Showing his superiority over Michael, the archangel.

Conclusion: It is evident that (1) the son is distinct from angelic beings (2) Angels do not accept worship (3) Jesus accepts worship (4) The world to come is not subject to angels (5) Angels cannot judge Satan. Jesus, therefore, is not Michael, the archangel.

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...







Debate Round No. 1
secret_strategem

Pro

Greetings, I appreciate your professional conduct in this debate.

Rebuttals

Con P1 - The Son is distinct from angelic beings

In this point we are in complete agreement. Jesus Christ is entirely different from the angelic servants of God. However, as I showed above, the word angel simply means messenger. “Michael the Archangel” is simply means "the chief messenger" Jesus is an angel in the same terminology as David and Paul where they are described as Angels.

In the Bible the words for angel are “malak” in the Hebrew and “angelos/aggellos” in the Greek. See Strong's Lexicon where it states: [1]

4397 mal'ak mal-awk' from an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher):--ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

32 aggelos ang'-el-os from aggello (probably derived from 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

743. archaggelos ar-khang'-el-os from 757 and 32; a chief angel:--archangel.

Cons point derived from Hebrews 1:5-8 is moot as there would be nothing wrong with all the angels worshiping Michael if he was indeed in the form of Jesus. [2]

Con P2 - Angels do not accept worship

Once more we are in complete agreement. But what Con does not realize is that in Joshua 5:14-15 Michael appears to Joshua and accepts worship!.

“14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15 And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so"

In all other places where regular angels appear to humans and they worship them, the angles do not accept the worship (e.g. Rev 19:10), but this one, “the captain of the Lord’s host,” does. In Revelation 12:7 it is clear that Michael is the leader of the angelic army that apposes Lucifer. It is thus logical to conclude that Michael is the commander of the Lords army. Now, as Con has stated “angels do not accept worship,” yet here we see the commander of the Lords army, seen in Revelation to be Michael, accepting worship. It would then be blasphemous to call the Commander of the Lords army anyone other than Jesus Christ, because that would mean that their is another being in the universe worthy of our worship...

Con P3 - Jesus Accepted Worship

Once again we agree, and in Joshua 5 we see him accepting worship again. Con states “Time and again Jesus accepted the kind of praise from men that is due only to God. He never sought to correct His followers, and redirect the worship away from Himself as did the angel in Revelation.” If Con holds to this position (As I do), but does not apply this to Michael, then how can he explain Joshua 5:14-16?

Con P4 - The World to come is not subject to Angels

Stating that Michael is not going to be in charge of the world to come because only Jesus will be is like stating the Messiah would not be in charge of the world to come, only Jesus. My point is that Michael the Archangel (chief messenger/General of the Lords Army) is just another one of the many names for Jesus. He is no normal angel, because he accepts worship because he is God. What Con must understand is that “angel” is a very broad term that applies to pastors, teachers, kings, the commonly called “angels” who are known not to accept worship, and Jesus Christ.

Con P5 - Angels cannot judge Satan

It is instructive to consider the context and meaning of both 2 Peter 2: 11 and Jude 1: 9 before making unfounded conclusions as to their implications. A key to interpreting the passage is to understand what is meant by a "railing accusation". A railing accusation is not a fair statement of judgment, but in contrast, it means to pronounce "slanderous judgment." The original word is “blasphēmias” which in the lexicon we see is “988 slander” [4]

So, What message are Peter and Jude trying to present?

A contrast is drawn between the conduct of evil human teachers and heavenly beings in relation to the way they speak of others. Evil human teachers are naively unafraid pronounce a slanderous judgment (bring a railing accusation) on anyone, even God and the angels of heaven. Sadly this is the reality of what we see amongst many people in the world today. In contrast the inhabitants of heaven treat everyone in the universe with respect and refrain from slander even when it is Satan. The lesson is that we should do the same. It is never right to slander other humans regardless of how evil they are. We should not even pronounce slanderous judgment on Satan for not even God stoops to that level.

Consider:

1. The Bible (Jude) does not say that Michael cannot judge Satan. To say so is purely an assumption.

2. The Bible (Jude) does say that Michael would not dare to pronounce a slanderous judgment on Satan which is entirely consistent with the character of Christ who will pronounce a fair (not slanderous) judgment on Satan.

3. The Bible (2 Peter) does not say that it is impossible for angels to pronounce slanderous judgment against God and the angels of Heaven. Rather, it presents that they choose not to do so because of their holy character. Clearly it is possible for them to slander God as Satan and his angels have been doing that from the very beginning of evil.

4. Jesus statement in John 8:44 is not a railing accusation but a simple plain statement of truth.

The reaction of both Michael and Satan in Jude 1: 9 is entirely consistent with what we would expect from a confrontation between Jesus and Satan. Jesus does not slander but simply rebukes Satan.

[1] http://www.eliyah.com...

[2] http://biblehub.com...

[3] http://biblehub.com...

[4] http://biblehub.com...

cjhill

Con

CON will demonstrate that PRO”s argument concerning the equality of Michael the archangel and Jesus does not hold.

Rebuttals

PRO P1 - Angel means "messenger", not necessarily a created winged seraphim, cherubim etc.

PRO begins by compounding the definitions of “arch”, “angel”, and “Michael”. PRO then asserts the compound is equal with Jesus. In essence, since

“arch” = chief

“angel” = messenger and

“Michael” = who is like God

Then, “Michael the archangel” = chief messenger who is like God = Jesus.

PRO’s logic dictates that “Jesus” may be substituted by any admirable assumption. Furthermore, a host of problems arise a result: What may be concluded about the angel Gabriel whose name means “mighty like God”? Recall that Jesus is called the mighty God in Isa.9:6. May we conclude then, that Gabriel is also Jesus? Moreover, by extension, are the names Michael, Gabriel and Jesus interchangeable? Also, consider Micah whose name means ”who is like Jehovah?”

The names don’t give a parallel but beg a question. Who is like God? Obviously no one. If Jesus is Michael then who are the other angels?

PRO P2- Jacob was redeemed by an angel.

PRO’s implication here is based on the passage from Genesis where an “angel of the Lord” appears before Jacob. PRO attempts to create an equality between the “angel of the Lord” and God fully revealed. However, PRO’s claim can only reflect the assumption that the “angel of the Lord” may be identified as “Michael the archangel” because Genesis does not specify the name (identity) of the angel.

Recall that PRO must prove the much stronger proposal that Michael the archangel is Jesus, not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God.

PRO P3 - God is the angel in the burning bush.

PRO’s implication here is based on Exodus 3:2-4 where an “angel of the Lord” appears before Moses. PRO attempts to create an equality between the “angel of the Lord” and God fully revealed. However, PRO’s claim can only reflect the assumption that the “angel of the Lord” may be identified as “Michael the archangel” because Exodus 3:2-4 does not specify the name (identity) of the angel.

Recall that PRO must prove the much stronger proposal that Michael the archangel is Jesus, not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God.

PRO P4 - “The Lord rebuke thee”

PRO relies on the assumption that references to titles/names inside separate passages can be interchanged at will, pending some interesting assumed similarities.

Consider Zechariah 3:1-2, “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan!’”.

Also consider Jude 9, "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee"

PRO contends that “the LORD rebuke you” connects the passages such that the “angel of the LORD” in the first passage, is “Michael the archangel” in the second passage, implying further that two passages are referencing the same incident, or the same type of incident. But the objections to either case are obvious: (1) The only similarity between the two passages is the expression, “the LORD rebuke you.” (2) The name “Michael” does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah. (3) There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” in Zechariah, and no allusion to it whatever.

Moreover, Jude 9 is clear in displaying Michael’s limited ability, Hence, “The LORD rebuke thee” evidences the LORD’s superiority over Michael the archangel. Also, notice how peter differentiates between angels and the Lord, "Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord (2 Peter 2:11). That is, “an archangel” is still an angel, though he is one of higher rank as surely as an archbishop is still a bishop, though he is one of higher rank. Therefore, according to 2 Peter 2:11, Michael must be a wholly separate being from the Lord, Jesus.

Finally, In stark contrast to Jude 9, Jesus repeatedly rebuked Satan. (Matt. 17:18, Mark 9:25, etc.) demonstrating the authority that Michael does not possess.

PRO P5 - Michael the Prince

PRO references the book of Daniel to support the claim that “the prince”, “your prince” and “great prince” not only refers to Michael the archangel but to Jesus since PRO assumes that “There is no prince greater than Jesus”.

Michael the archangel is mentioned only five times in the Bible (Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7), and yet none of these passages indicate that he is to be equated with the preincarnate Christ, nor with the ascended Jesus.

Daniel 10:13 says "Michael, one of the chief princes", Daniel 10:21 says, "Michael your prince." Daniel 12:1 says, "Michael the great prince." Notice that Michael is just "one the chief princes, " not unique at all. Then if Michael is Jesus, are there many Christs, of which Jesus is just one?

By claiming Jesus is "Michael", PRO reduces Jesus to a category of "one of the chief princes." Indeed, Jesus is not "one of" anything.

PRO P6 - The Voice of the Archangel

Concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Paul wrote: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thessalonians 4:16). Based on this passage, PRO asserts that since Jesus is described as descending from heaven “with the voice of an archangel,” then He must be the archangel Michael. However, this verse does not teach that Jesus is an archangel, but that at His Second Coming He will be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.” Just as He will be attended “with a shout” and “with the trumpet of God,” so will He be accompanied “with the voice of an archangel.”

PRO P7 - The Commander of the Lords Army

Again, PRO relies on the assumption that references to titles/names inside separate passages can be interchanged at will, pending some interesting assumed similarities.

Even if CON accepts this point as valid, per say, PRO does not prove the much stronger proposal that Michael the archangel is Jesus, not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God. Using a scripture that includes “Michael” as a connector for the overall premise does not hold, nor is it clear where even the slightest logic buds into a sensible framework.

Conclusion:

Although PRO's points apeared to be well formulated at first, PRO’s downfall is that he is not able prove that Michael the archangel is Jesus, and not merely that an “angel of Lord” is God.

http://www.biblegateway.com...











Debate Round No. 2
secret_strategem

Pro

Rebuttals of Rebuttals

Unfortunatly due to space issues, I could not post Cons statements above mine for context.

PRO P1 - Angel means "messenger", not necessarily a created winged seraphim, cherubim etc.

Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.

This argument is without foundation for it fails to take into consideration context. Clearly Gabriel cannot be confused with Christ and neither can Micah for both of them prophesied of the coming of someone other than themselves who would be the Messiah. See Luke 1: 35, Micah 5: 2 etc. Context therefore rules out the possibility that they are Christ.

There is no context that prohibits Michael from being Jesus. If the meaning of the word Michael was the sole argument to determine the identity of Michael as Jesus the argument would not stand however this argument is built on the context of all the scriptures referring to Michael.

PRO P2- Jacob was redeemed by an angel.

Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.

Admitted - The Angel that redeemed Jesus is not identified as Michael. This argument is presented to reveal that the Bible clearly and repeatedly calls God/Jesus an angel. It would be blasphemous to state that anyone other than Jesus is able to redeem

Con has not shown that God cannot be called an angel.

PRO P3 - God is the angel in the burning bush.

Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.

Admitted - The Angel in the burning bush is not identified as Michael. However this angel is clearly identified as I AM, Yahweh, the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob. Jesus claimed that He was this angel in John 8: 56 – 59. This argument is presented to reveal that Jesus clearly identifies himself as the angel in the burning bush. It would be blasphemous to state that anyone other than God could be called “I AM”.

Con has not shown that God cannot be called an angel.

PRO P4 - “The Lord rebuke thee”

Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.

Pro has missed the main point of this argument. Indeed similarities of sentence structure are not proof. This argument is presented to remove the objection that Michael cannot be Jesus because he is speaking on behalf of God. These verses demonstrate that this is a typical way for God to speak when in the presence of Satan.

Con has failed to show a contrast here between Michael and Jesus but rather he has highlighted a distinct similarity.

"The Lord rebuke you" does nothing to show the Lord’s superiority over Michael. This is clearly demonstrated by the statement in Zech 3: 2 Where God uses these exact words to speak to Satan. If pro’s argument is used in the context of Zech 3 God is showing superiority . . . over God. Clearly this is an argument without foundation.

Con has proved nothing about the difference between angels and God by quoting 2 Peter 2: 11 for he fails to note that the accusation in both passages is a “railing” or “slanderous” accusation. This passage proves that both Michael and the angels are unable to slander. It contains not a shred of evidence to show that Michael is not able to judge Satan. Clearly neither God nor the angels can bring a railing/slanderous accusation for they are holy and beyond sin.

This contrast does not exist for Jude is not talking about a rebuke or judgment, he is speaking of a railing or slanderous accusation. Jesus cannot slander for He is holy.

Con has failed to show any contrast between Michael and Jesus in these passages.

PRO P5 - Michael the Prince

Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.

CON has established a dangerous principle in this argument. Con claims that because Michael is “one of” the chief princes he cannot be unique. He also assumes that all the chief princes are of the same rank and therefore being “one of” the chief princes makes Michael the same rank as the others. Can CON produce any evidence to demonstrate that all the chief princes are of the same rank?

Question Is Jesus a man? Yes. Is He “one of” many “chief” men? Yes. Just because Jesus is “one of” many men does that take away his uniqueness as the greatest of all men? Clearly not!

Question Is Jesus a Messenger? Yes. Is He “one of” many messengers? Yes. Just because Jesus is “one of” many messengers does that take away his uniqueness as the greatest messenger of all time? Clearly not!

Question Is Jesus a prince? Yes. (Rev 1: 5) Is He one of many princes? Yes. If being “one of” makes Jesus the same rank as all princes then CON has made Jesus the same rank as Jacob or Satan who are also called a princes.

This passage actually demonstrates Jesus is a higher rank than the other chief princes for he is not just a chief (“rishown”, strongs 7223) [1] prince but is revealed elsewhere in scripture to be the first (Archo strongs 757) [2] in rank of all the chief princes.

PRO P6 - The Voice of the Archangel

Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.

John 5: 28 Reveals that the voice that Jesus comes with is His own voice and the trumpet that sounds is His own trumpet. Zech 9: 14

CON has not proved that the Shout, Trumpet and voice of the Archangel cannot be the voice and trumpet of God.

PRO P7 - The Commander of the Lords Army

Observers, please read Cons statments on this point for context above.

Admitted - The Angel of the Lord is not identified as Michael. This argument is presented to reveal that the Bible clearly and repeatedly calls God/Jesus an angel.

Also, Rev 12 identifies the identifies Michael, an angel, as the leader of the armies of heaven. Joshua is confronted by an angel, who is the leader of the armies of heaven. Con states that it is illogical to claim that these are the same person. What evidence can CON produce to demonstrate that a change of leadership has taken place between these two events? One wonders at the logic of boldly claiming that these are two different individuals without a statement from scripture to support it...

Con has not shown that God cannot be called an angel.

[1] The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, James Strong L.L.D, S.T.D, referance no. 7223
[2] Ibid, reference no. 757

cjhill

Con

Rebuttals of Rebuttals

CON will continue to demonstrate that PRO”s argument concerning the equality of Michael the archangel and Jesus does not hold.


In this round, CON will refute PRO's rebuttals to CON's orginial points. The original points are underlined subheadings.

CON P1 - The Son is distinct from angelic beings.

If the argument against the equivalency of Michael the archangel and Jesus required only one point, and one point required one passage of scripture, Hebrews 1:5-8 would suffice for it shows:


1) A clear distinction between Jesus and the angels, “For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’? Or again, ‘I will be His Father, and He will be my Son’? And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says, ‘Let all God's angels worship Him.’ This passage alone proves that Michael could never have been the Son.

In speaking of the angels He says, ‘He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.’ But about the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’”

2) The hierarchy of heavenly beings is made clear in this passage—angels worship Jesus who, as God, is alone worthy of worship. No angel is ever worshipped in Scripture; therefore, Jesus (worthy of worship) cannot be Michael or any other angel (not worthy of worship). The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4;Job 1:6;2:1;38:7), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8;Matthew 4:3-6).

PRO has chosen not to refute this argument based on scripture, but has instead claimed (without scriptural support) that Michael the archangel may be worshiped if he is in "the form of Jesus"(PRO). Based on this claim, PRO is asserting one of two things:

1. That Michael the archangel may be workshiped when he is in the form of the Son.

2. That Michael the archangel may be workshiped when he is in the form of a man.

Clearly, 1. is not possible based on the scritputre above-The writer eloquently points out that God never said to any angel (archangels are angels) that they are his Son. Indeed, the scripture above excludes the possibility that an angel could become the Son, since the angel would be the Son from the beginning. Which leaves 2. Michael the archangel cannot be worshiped in the form of a man, or angel-man, since he is still an angel by nature and can never accept worship (Revelation 19:10).

CON P2 - Angels do not accept worship

PRO claims that Michael appears to Joshua and accepts worship in Joshua 5:14-15

“14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15 And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so"

Instead it is evident that PRO's conclusion is absent of this consideration: In verse 14 above we read that Joshua asks, "What saith my lord unto his servant?" Notice the lowercase "l" applied to "lord". In verse 15 we see the writer apply an uppercase "L" to another "Lord", "And the captain of the Lord's host." Clearly, the passage refers to two seperate beings: the Lord Jesus, and the lord Michael, captiain of the host of the Lord Jesus.

CON P3 - Jesus Accepted Worship

PRO agrees but asks for a clarification of Joshua 5: 14-15, which is given in detail directly above, under CON P2.

CON P4 - The World to come is not subject to Angels

Here, PRO misquotes CON, "Stating that Michael is not going to be in charge of the world to come because only Jesus will be is like stating the Messiah would not be in charge of the world to come, only Jesus." That is, CON never stated that "Michael is not going to be in charge of the world to come." Check above for proof of this.

However, CON did provide a scripture where Paul claims, "For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak"[Hebrews 2:5]. CON admits, it does seem to send the same message.

CON P5 - Angels cannot judge Satan

PRO has decided to deflect the attention away from the point by keying in on "railing accusation" in Jude 9. So it will be explained:

Jude introduced this event to stress the dangerous indecency of speaking evil or speaking disdainfully of exalted angels in God’s hierarchy of creation, let alone of God Himself. Michael is one of God’s archangels, yet Satan (Lucifer) had once been the highest of all, as the anointed cherub over God’s throne (Ezekiel 28:14). So even though Satan had fallen from heaven, he was still treated with great respect by Michael when contending with him.

(As a parrellel for this type of behavior in the human realm, recall how David acted when Saul tried to kill him; David knew he could never lay a hand on, or bring any kind of accusation against Saul, God's anointed (2 Samuel 24:6;2 Samuel 24:12).

Thus, "Railing accusation" is not meant to be compared against a rebuke, for he clearly does, in the same passage. Rather it is identified as a word usuage meant to stress the heart of the matter, and also, shed light on the heiarchy of heaven. Finally, recall that the Lord Jesus, unlike Michael, is over Satan, and thus, a rebuke is able to cary his title.[Jude 9;John 8:44]

Conclusion: Viewers should consider whether they are conviced that PRO has shown that Michael the archangel is Jesus, and not merely that an “angel of the Lord” is God. Thank you.












Debate Round No. 3
secret_strategem

Pro

Final Rebuttal of One Point: As per the rules, I will only counter one of pros prevous statements.

Con Point 5 - Angels cannnot Judge Satan

It took me a while to understand exactly what Cons line of argument was here. Observers, please read it before hand and make sure you understand his line of argument.
Con begins by explaining that Pro has deflected "away from the point" but then does not provide evidence to back it up where or what I am defelecting away from. I used the lexicon to prove the definition of "railing accustations," yet Con says this is proving nothing?

"Jude introduced this event to stress the dangerous indecency of speaking evil or speaking disdainfully of exalted angels in God’s hierarchy of creation, let alone of God Himself."

Yes. That is why Michael did not bring slanderous accusations against Satan.

"Michael is one of God’s archangels, yet Satan (Lucifer) had once been the highest of all, as the anointed cherub over God’s throne (Ezekiel 28:14). So even though Satan had fallen from heaven, he was still treated with great respect by Michael when contending with him. "

Pro maintains that Michael is the (archo) “first” messenger of heaven. It should be noted that the word first is singular and exclusive. It is impossible to have more than one “first” of anything. [1] First is used in the context of preeminence rather than chronology therefore we know that Michael is the first or greatest messenger and prince. Therefore, Gabriel, Lucifer or any other angel could not be an archangel because that would be linguisticaly impossible.

Moreover, Con has not yet proved that Micheal is not Jesus in this rebuttal. Pro has dismantled Cons earlier reasonings, and it now appears there is now nothing sound Con can bring to the argument.

"(As a parrellel for this type of behavior in the human realm, recall how David acted when Saul tried to kill him; David knew he could never lay a hand on, or bring any kind of accusation against Saul, God's anointed (2 Samuel 24:6;2 Samuel 24:12)."

With this lovely comparison, Con has still not proved that Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel in Jude 9, whilst my reasonings that he can be still stand.

"Thus, "Railing accusation" is not meant to be compared against a rebuke, for he clearly does, in the same passage. Rather it is identified as a word usuage meant to stress the heart of the matter, and also, shed light on the heiarchy of heaven. Finally, recall that the Lord Jesus, unlike Michael, is over Satan, and thus, a rebuke is able to cary his title.[Jude 9;John 8:44]"

I agree with all of that. How does that disprove me at all? He has still not shown how Michael is not Jesus, whilst my arguments that he can be still stand.

Conclusion
: Cons arguments are based on a narrow understanding of what an angel is that limits an angel to a heavenly creature. Pro has repeatedly demonstrated that the word Angel means messenger and can be applied in a broad sense to anyone who carries a message including God. Pro agrees that heavenly creatures called angels are distinct and a lower in rank to God/Jesus, cannot be worshipped, will not rule the new Earth, and cannot judge. Pro maintains that Michael is not a heavenly created being, a point that Con has failed to disprove.
Pro maintains that Michael is the (archo) “first” messenger of heaven. This is singular and exclusive. It is impossible to have more than one “first” of anything. First is used in the context of preeminence rather than chronology [1] therefore we know that Michael is the first or greatest messenger and prince. As there cannot be more than one “greatest” messenger and “greatest” prince, Con by making Michael a created being has made him a creature that is greater messenger and prince than Christ. To prove that Michael cannot be Christ Con must demonstrate how Michael can be the greatest messenger and prince and yet not be as great as Christ. If Con could prove that Michael is a created being he could claim that Michael is the greatest messenger of all created beings. Con has not been able to prove that Michael is a created being.

In the Bible it is seen that God repetedly accepts worship in the form of an angel. Once an angel calls themselves the "I AM." (Exodus 3.) Whislt these do not prove Jesus is Michael, they prove Jesus can be an angel. In Joshua 5 it is logical to conclude that Jesus is before Joshua, in the form of the leader of the army of heaven. In Revelation 12 we see that to be Michael. In John 5:28 it is revealed that the voice that Christ decends with is his own, and in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 we see that Christ decends witht the voice of the archangel Jesus is Michael.

Those who will vote, please consider the logic followed by the arguments unbiasedly as you make your decision.

[1] http://www.biblestudytools.com...;
cjhill

Con

For the final rubuttal, please refer to CON P1 in round 3, as it should be a sufficient.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Um that's a lot to read. Not saying I won't read it, it's actually interesting, but when people vote they wouldn't want to read it because it's too long.
Posted by secret_strategem 3 years ago
secret_strategem
I would like to thank cjhill for his good conduct in this debate. I respect and appreciate that.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Awesome debate.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Wonderful.

I use the KJV also.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
secret_strategemcjhillTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: More in depth rebuttals by Pro.