help:I know christianity has three parts .

Using ths definition for archangel:
"n 1: an angel ranked above the highest rank in the celestial hierarchy. . ."
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archangel
And this one for Michael:
"who is like God? (1.) The title given to one of the chief angels (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1). He had special charge of Israel as a nation. He disputed with Satan (Jude 1:9) about the body of Moses. He is also represented as warning against "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world" (Rev. 12:7-9)."
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/michael
A further reading of Jude 9 shows that Michael is referred to as the archangel.

So Michael would have to be the foremost of God's angels, revealing him to be not Jesus' brother, but Jesus himself.

Before you twist off my head, remember that Jesus not only had pre human existence, he was referred to by other names and titles before he became Jehovah's Salvation (the meaning of the name 'Jesus')

Now you've stepped out onto the thin ice. Jesus only means Joshua.

Joshua - Yehoh·shu'a'; means Yahweh (Jehovah) is salvation.

Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/joshua-25

The several sources which i have just consulted all agree that Joshua derives from "Jehova saves," which has quite a different meaning than that you have attempted to impute to it. You have attempted to contend that "Jesus" means Jehova's salvation--implying that it intends to describe the putative Jesus as that salvation. However, if it means, as those sources i consulted all contend, Jehova saves, then the imputation is quite different. At all events, there is no reason to assume from that that the name means anything different with regard to one particular Joshua than it does in the case of a different Joshua. As is so often the case with theology, it is necessary to stretch an interpretation to make your case.

That wasn't my point Set. In fact, the information you provide is further proof that Jesus is not equal to God.

I'm not trying to prove that the putative Jesus is "equal" to God. I have no dog in the fight about the alleged divinity of the putative Jesus. However, i do find it silly to attempt to make so much of the possible fact that the putative Jesus, if he did exist, had a name so common as Joshua. After all, pick up a handful of gravel in the market place in Jerusalem two thousand years ago, and fling it at the crowd, and the odds are very good that you'll hit more than one joker named Joshua. The mere coincidence of the name means nothing.

My point, exactly.

However, one should concede that in this particular conversation, the name Jesus probably refers to the one after whom Christianity took its name.

My mother was a Unitarian.

With that i have no quibble--however, to cut to the chase, we are always going to come down--sooner or later, and more likely sooner rather than later--to the matter of faith in that which cannot be demonstrated, without which condition, we of course would not be speaking of faith. I don't have a problem with the fact that you believe as you do, i simply don't agree, which you know, and from your behavior, i assume you accept with good grace. Spare me, as you have always done, any recitation of any hope you might have for my eventual "salvation."

You accept on faith that a god exists. From there you proceed to a contention that the putative Jesus is the first creation of the deity, and he through whom "salvation" is to be attained. Now i know that Mr. Russell contended that this were so, but i've not done enough study of Mr. Russell and his theology and exegesis to know if he asserts a scriptural foundation for such a contention. At whatever point, however, that one alludes to scripture for the basis of an assertion, one is begging the core question, because the "evidence" is self-referential and depends upon accepting the contention that scripture is divinely-inspired and inerrant.

To look, however, at the series of contentions from a position outside the belief set, it is entirely possible that you've hitched your star to the wrong Joshua. It is entirely possible that the first creation made incarnate was not labelled Joshua. Regardless of the label applied, it is entirely possible that the messenger and the message were missed, and that the message has yet to be revealed, or at least discovered. Many Jews believe in an annoited one, a messiah, or savior, but don't believe the joker has yet had his cue and appeared on stage. For someone who operates outside the belief set, there is little to choose between one set of contentions and the other. Both rely upon an acceptance on faith that the deity exists, and that one can learn the truth which the deity wishes to impart from scripture. In the end, as in the beginning, one has to rely upon faith, and cannot state the basis of the proposed thesis to be anything other than, ultimately, faith. Again i have no problem with the idea, i simply don't accept it.

I fully recognize that, operating as you do from within the belief set, you consider the question of the divinity of the putative Jesus to be an important matter, which can be either theologically or exegetically (or both) resolved. In regard to that, the name, which may merely be coincidental, given its commonality, is not conclusive.

Could other people tell by looking, and did the boys in the higher forms rag you for it?

No and no. Just pointing out such Unitarian faith within Christianity exists. I was christened in a Unitarian chapel, and confirmed in the Church of England, which, as the latter regard the former as heretics must put my mortal soul in danger.

Have you got one of those, Boss? I've seen chest x-rays of myself, and nothing untoward seems to be lurking in there.

metaphorically speaking...

Apparantly the Devil lives up your right nostril at night.


like you I want evidence.

I suspect that, as is my experience, you don't get it.