The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 56329
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Round 1

Round 1 is for acceptance only. The following rules are to be kept.

1. The text that will be used is the New International Version (hereby the "NIV"), unless CON can somehow prove that the verses in question are corrupted and the New World Translation (hereby the "NWT) is actually the authoritative work on said verse.

2. Wikipedia shall be considered a legitimate source. Use of Wikipedia shall not receive scrutiny from voters.

I am looking forward to a insightful debate.


How can you be so sure that Michael the archangel isn't Jesus? As we know Michael was one of most powerful archangels of all ages, and he was strong enough to defeat Lucifer. In my opinion we might consider, that Michael is God's son, Jesus. He is very powerful, and so is Jesus. Maybe that's why Jesus died for people's sins, because he was an archangel. Angels are the guards, the people's guards who are protecting us. I think that Michael might be consider as God's son, Jesus.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Karwin for accepting.


I will begin my arguments by noting that angels are created beings as evidenced in Psalm 148 (NIV):

Praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise him in the heights above.
2 Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
3 Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars.
4 Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for at his command they were created,

At this point it is conclusive that the Bible supports the notion that angels are created beings.

If angels are created beings, then Jesus must either be another created being, or not created if he is truly not an angel.
The Bible supports the notion that Jesus was uncreated.

John 8:58 (NIV): "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Basically what is happening here is that Jesus is stressing that even before Abraham, he has always existed. In the Greek manuscripts from which this verse was found, the term "ego eimi" (or "I am") is used, indicating eternality, instead of "genesthai" (or "was born, begin to be"), which indicates temporary existence. The verse is also a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God identifies himself as "I AM." [1]

With all of these in mind, the following logical statement can be created

P1: All angles are created
P2: Michael is an angel
P3: Jesus was not created
Conclusion: Jesus is not Michael the Archangel.


In Jude 1:9 (NIV) it says:

"But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'"

As we can see here, Michael the Archangel does not have the authority to rebuke Satan. However in Matthew 4:10 (NIV), Jesus is clearly shown having the authority to rebuke Satan.

"Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Clearly, Jesus's authority over Satan cannot change as "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

I believe that at this point I have clearly shown why Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel as evidenced in Scripture.

I eagerly await Con's rebuttal.



Dear Con;
As we go deeper into that topic, I had a pleasure to read some information about "Michael" as the name of that one archangel.

"AV - Michael 13; 13
Michael = "who is like God"

As it says, Michael is the archangel that is like God. Only but looking at the name of the archangel we see some connection between Michael and God, but lets see the definition of the word archangel.

"AV - archangel 2; 2
1) archangel, or chief of the angels"

So archangel is the chief of the angels, or the boss of the angels, which mean that he could give orders to all of them. God's son, Jesus was a significant person and as we know, the apostles were listening to God's words and spread them. As we look farther lets see the definition of the word "angel"

"TDNT - 1:74,12; n m
AV - angel 179, messenger 7; 186
1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God"

Angels, the messenger. Jesus was sharing the God's words, so we can say that he was also a messenger. From the definitions of the words we got this:

Michael - the one that is like God
archangel - chief of the angels
angel - a messenger
Therefore it gives us a certain description of Michael, the archangel. The one that is like god, chief and messenger.
Michael as well as Jesus were the messengers that were sharing the words of God, therefore Michael=Jesus

We also know that God's child, Jesus appeared to people in certain situations.

Genesis 16:7, "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur."

Genesis 21:17-18, "And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation."

Genesis 22:11-12, "And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

"The angel of the Lord", Jesus.

I look forward to the response.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Con for your response.

Con seems to have not contested any of my points and instead brings forth new arguments. I assume then that he will post his rebuttal to my statements in this round. Therefore I will not bring forth any more new arguments and I expect him to do the same.


Con has made a fatal interpretation error saying that the Hebrew term "Michael" means "who is like God" and should be interpreted as meaning "[he/one] who is like God". His incorrect translation makes it seem that the Archangel was given the name because he was like/similar to God. However upon closer examination, we see that the translation, "who is like God" is actually a QUESTION. It is a rhetorical/scornful question that asks "who is like God?" and expects in answer of "no one." It does not mean to imply the the bearer of the name is similar to God; intead, it means to respect God by affirming that no one in this world is like God. See sources for a more in depth explanation. [1][2]


Con states that because both Jesus and Michael were messengers of God, they must be the same.

This is his logic:

P1: Jesus is a messenger of God
P2: Michael is a messenger of God
C: Jesus is Michael.

That is akin to saying:

P1: Nicolas Cage is a fisherman
P2: I am a fisherman
C: I am Nicolas Cage

The above argument is obviously fallicious and I can definitely say that I am not Nicolas Cage just because we are both fisherman. Con might argue that since they are both like God (as he argued above) they are more likely to be the same person. I have already shown that his assumption that Michael is like God because of his name is false, but even if he was right, just because it is more likely that they are the same given two common attributes doesn't mean that they ARE the same. He still has not yet given hard proof that they ARE they same and not just LIKELY the same.


Again, Con tries to argue that because both have some common attribute (appearing to people), they must be the same. See rebuttal two for a complete explanation of why this is fallicious.

I look forward to Con's response.




Thanks for your response,

As we read in the Bible, Michael is the only archangel. There is no other archangels. In Greek, word arche means first in position as well as time. Therefore we know that Michael was the first one, and he was the chief of all the angels:

"one of the foremost princes" (Dan 10:13 NWT)"

Thessalonians 4:16: "the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice"
Jesus spoke with an archangel's voice.

If there was only one archangel, and Jesus spoke with archangel's voice then we should understand that Jesus was the archangel, Michael. We might conclude that Michael, was Jesus name before Jesus started walking the Earth.

Looking forward for your response.

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you Con for your response.

Again, Con has not contested any of my arguments from round 2 on. I guess at this point I will rebut is final argument and make some closing statements.


Thessalonians 4:16 does not say that Jesus is an archangel, it just says He will speak like one, which makes sense because archangels are powerful. The statement is allegorical in nature. It is like when someone says that another person sings like a dying goat. Are they a dying goat? No, it's just a comparison.

I would also like to present the following verse that call on believers not to worship angels:

"Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind." (1 Colossians 2:18 NIV)


Thanks for a good debate. VOTE PRO


Dear Con,
Thank you very much for the debate. I had some fun debating with you. It was very interesting to read facts about Jesus and the Michael. After all you used the stronger arguments and you deserve to win this debate more. Thank you once again!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Karwin 2 years ago
I am so sorry but I forgot about the citations for my last response:
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Somebody is trying to take the Micky out of Jesus?? :-D~
Posted by NNEye 2 years ago
What about the KJV?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good, well researched argument form Pro, conf fell short of refuting Pro's argument. Though interestingly enough if Jesus and God were separate entities, and people worship Jesus as God, this would make Christianity a Polytheistic religion.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
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: Nice debate.