Space Merchant

@AllenSmith34 The Bible speaks of many nobles, Lords, princes and leaders, however among all of them there is but one who is the great one and the leader, this one is God's chosen one, and is above all due to authority and power given to him, in addition to this one's position as the Chief Angel. Archangel, however, is never mention in plural form, occurrences being 2-3 times I believe, and it is often in singular form. But that is correct, just as all of elohim are called gods and or godlike ones, even among them, such ones are called princes, leaders and nobles, but only one stands up among all of them.For Jesus, also being both Michael/Immanuel, has this title Prince of Peace, which tells us that the Christ/Messiah will be given this title, coming from Isaiah 9:6 in respects to the customs of the Jews regarding given names. The reason of this title - because the authority, the government that God will place on his shoulders will be a peace without end.

Then cite them here since you are the one to bring it up. I would also like to mention there are many, if not dozens more, who take some of Pearl's interpretation of things in error. There is no question on some things she is right, but other things on the more important side of the spectrum she holds little understanding of and or profess error of such. Other than that, Rick Fearon does not represents and or supports no one but he himself, and has been called out on such time and time again over the years, the only reason I know who he is, is due to the wedding rings claim to which in discussion, a follower of Fearon had been refuted on the claims made, I still have refutation notes saved.

There is some that do, but their say is often drowned out by mainstream Trinity beveling scholars who claim to be Christians. Other than that John 1:1 does not prove Jesus is God mainly if you take the verse and introduction of John into context, in addition to what the Torah had made mention of a coming prophet that is to have God's Word in him and this Word he speaks of to the people, as seen in John chapter 4.

Clearly I said such in question since you yield support of Rick Fearon and the proof of such even stems from the very community of which you tend to pull the information from. Like I said, they do not stockpile weapons to go on a shooting spree should they choose it. Also if you are going to make mention of things, rather cite the information. Lastly, I recognize Raytheon Company, the reality here is, this has been debunked a decade ago even by JW opponents, I only know this because I began studying Christian minorities in my youth, so I hope what you will bring to the table is accurate. Other than that, Rick Fearon, according to some JWs, ExJws, Anti-Christians, agnostics and among the non religious, is false in what he says, even by one who is very close to this man. None of them supports Rick, and there is enough reasons as to why this is. I do have an idea of what she professes, yet some of what she says contradict one thing for something else, perhaps on purpose or by mistake; and or says otherwise, the same can be said about Heavenly Jerusalem, of which was brought up here to which such has been traced back to her. Like I said, she sheds no information of early Church and or Christians who hold this belief, unless you are willing to put such information here rather the a question/reply.

Shaliach means Sent and or to be Sent (sent one), and it's Strong's #7971. It is embedded in Jewish Customs and such was done and applied in God's use of angels and prophets. Shaliach is more like this: Let us say you are a King, you send Rook to carry out a message and or an action in your name. You give him the message, tell the people of the Whale Tribe this: I Srecko Sostar demand you people to contribute to the Kingdom for we have helped you time and time again when you needed the help. Rook, being sent by you, will say the exact same thing you have said, for this is what Srecko Sostar has said: I Srecko Sostar demand you people to contribute to the Kingdom for we have helped you time and time again when you needed the help. Rook represents you, for you are his King, clearly having higher power and authority than Rook, in this sense, you are Rook's Lord, as or the message, of what you have spoken, Rook speaks of your Word which is coming through him. Moreover, the people we use in this example, The Whale Tribe, will understand this is not Rook's message, but yours and that this message is of your word, not his. This is the same case with the Angels of God, the 3 men, for they appear, but God speaks through them, other times, it is an Angel carrying out what God had said, the same case can be made for Prophets, as well as Jesus, for he is not just a Prophet, but God's only-begotten Son, for Jesus did not come on his own or speak on his own, for it is God the Father who is conveying His purpose and will through Christ Jesus, the one of whom he had sent, Shliach. Other than that, this custom is very strong among Jews today even, to some extent, Muslims, mainly the Shias. Only a few Christians apply this though.

Over the centuries there has been uninspired canons that some believed in only to discover such is false, this also goes for the case of the Bible itself, an example would the the changed, forged and or uninspired text that has entered the Bible around the 16th century, of such is still believed by some because it appears in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The hypocrisy is some translations are often attacked by Trinitarians as well as others among the mainstream, an example would be the AS, the NIV, and several others, of which some target for omitting verses from the Bible, this is the same case with the JW's translation of the Bible, granted they and many others had no choice but to adhere to the KJV years ago. I threw this information to Allen some weeks ago, I may as well make it known here to show that there is a total showing of hypocrisy by those who cry and rant about omitted verses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations As for the question posed, it is not a matter of who, anyone who knows the Bible's History knows exactly of what is being addressed, the Bible in it's original forum is of the 4th century source alone, although, some tried to challenge change with uninspired views only to be stopped by the church fathers, one of which I had made mention to you before Eusebius of Caesarea (ad 260/265 – 339/340). That being said, as for The Book of Enoch, it is not Bible Canon, nor does it ever appear in the oldest source, to say otherwise makes the claim neigh impossible to prove because the truth is the truth. We know this because The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal text, also referred to as pseudepigraphic text meaning falsely attributed written works, for such texts that claim authorship when it has nothing to do with the true author, and or a work whose real author. Moreover, it covers the false ascription of names of authors to works, even to authentic works that make no such claim within their text whatsoever. But obviously, such is widely accepted by many, even though it is evident that such is incorrect in attribution of authorship may make a completely authentic text appear apocryphal (pseudepigraphic), thus why Textual and Literary criticism exist. Now this book is falsely ascribed to Enoch and came about sometime during the 1st and or 2nd centuries B.C.E., it is a collection of extravagant and unhistorical Jewish myths, exegetical elaborations on the brief Genesis mention and references to Enoch. Therefore many man who takes and loves God's inspired Word will not be foolish to be take any apocryphal as inspired, thus such, this Book of Enoch, as well as Jubilee and Tomas, are uninspired and not Biblical Canon, but clearly it seems quite easy to fool a man nowadays, even back in those ancient times. I also like to add that is 100% accepted by and consider as canon by such ones like The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, in addition to those of mainstream Christendom, and only them. As for inspired and not inspired text, clearly in this domain you are still confused. The I am making a references to is inspired text vs. uninspired text in the Bible, namely verses that have been forged like 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16, or perhaps added man made verses such as Acts 8:37 and several others. Inspired text originates from the 4th century source ( Septuagint/LXX), while the uninspired came about in the 16th century, for such was added into God's Word thus making the confusion, granted that the KJV Bible was pretty much forced upon many people. Then you may want to re-check of what you addressed on Jude 9. There is a good reason why I brought up Zechariah 3:2. And if you are still lost, cross-references can help you greatly, that is why I cited them for you. If that does not suffice, simply check here: https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Jude+1%3A9 That being said, I had already addressed that these verses are not just cross-references, but are parallel from each other, clearly we see this same person not in a position to rebuke the Devil in the presence of God, mainly in God's dwelling place. there are only 2 Lords (that alone should be obvious) being spoke here, hence the references, and the rest should be child's play on who has said what - this also goes for the one who was responsible for casting Satan and his demons out of Heaven. But out of curiosity, however, which Bible Translation you are using? For I know only few translations to not make references to connecting verses and or cite places and or words in reference.

@ShariKind Indeed. That is why I believe that God will return people to life by means of his son, Jesus. In my experience, death is viewed as a chain being carried around one's neck, and I have lost many to it, even those by means of suicide and or the likes of sorcery itself, since relatives of mind and even friends come from Caribbean countries. It is very tough out there and even tougher to maintain faith, and I always encourage anyone to really look at the bible of what it says regardless of denomination because it is always better to be having the truth and to close to it rather than being vastly distanced from the truth.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Or that, but as for the Mickey Mouse remark, I thought I was the only one who notice that, thus going mad. Other than that, the Bible makes connections and alluding of things even if not direct, example, the fact that Jesus is alluded to being a King despite not saying it, Jesus being the only-begotten one who was sent, him being the Seed as well as the prophet and what he will do, etc. All I can say is thank God that uninspired Bible Canons didn't make it into the Bible, however we did get the Textus Receptus/Comma Johanneum nonsense, but over time we ironed that mess out. Now if Bible Canon like Enoch was in the Bible, that alone would cause problems, oh and the book of Thomas, what is written in there is like a Fan-Fic view of Jesus' resurrection, Fan-Fic as in, it sounds like a young child having a "Superhero" based view of risen Jesus. If you still do not see it, in brief: it speaks of Jesus being pale, exiting his tomb and growing into the size of a giant, with the wooden device of which Jesus was crucified with spoke and sang in praise of Jesus as it trails behind him - see how silly that sounds? Now imagine if that was in the Bible, the atheists will have a field-day with that one as they did with the Unicorn verses without understanding that it was a one horned rhino.

Yeah, in general, no one really mentions anything that is not Biblical Cannon and or uninspired and only other Archangels are mention in these uninspired text, with the inclusion of Michael, in these uninspired canons, Gabriel is also considered to be an Archangel. However, in full Biblical Canon, inspired text, the only Archangel is Michael, pretty much the head honcho of God's Army, otherwise known as The Great Prince.

The very reason I brought up the verse that is cr'd with Jude 9. Clearly it isn't Yahweh because we clearly see the one speaking is speaking of YHWH to rebuke so and so. the malak of elohim is the one speaking and it is no surprise of the cross-references of which this verse is connected to. But if one has a view of one verse, yet have a different view of another verse, that alone speaks volume. For in this sense, if we are to say one thing about Jude 9, yet say and or view Zechariah 3:2 vastly different than the first verse, then what of it, then? These 2 are parallel verses, and the fact we spoken about Jesus/Michael having not being able to overstep authority in the presence of God the Father, regardless if you think of the both of them as the same or not, the verses speak for themselves. now if we go even deeper than that, aside from Jude 9, this verse somewhat connects with Mark 9:25 also (Jude 23, Isaiah 7:4, Amos 4:11, Zechariah 2:12 if we're really feeling it today). And no, Gabriel is indeed an Angel of the Lord as well, but the verses in question points to a specific one, not Gabriel. It is fact that in the Greek New Testament, the term Angel of the Lord is used several times, however, only once it is used to identified with Gabriel, of which is seen in Luke 1:11–19, so in short, An angel of the Lord (An Angel of Yahweh) who is mentioned in is identified as Gabriel. Gabriel has made some appearances. The first time was in regards to Prophet Daniel near Ulai River on the 3rd year of Belshazzar's rule (kingship), and when he appeared, Gabriel was up to task to explain Daniel's visions (Daniel 8:15–26) as well as the 1st year of Darius, the Mede, to deliver the prophecy regarding the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:1, 21–27). And finally, we have his appearance to the priest, Zechariah, the Father of John, the Husband of Elizabeth, and he himself was sent to deliver good news, 2 in fact. The first news being that his aging wife Elizabeth will have a son, the one named John (the Baptizer/Baptist), as seen in Luke 1:11-20. Afterwards, Gabriel carried out the second good news that he was tasked to delivery, and this message was direct to young Mary, the betrothed virgin girl to Joseph as seen in Luke 1:26-38. Anyways, Gabriel is indeed a high ranking angel within the Spiritual court in Heaven, standing before God the Father. Gabriel has been said to be An Archangel himself, however, the Book of Enoch (Biblical Apocrypha) is not Biblical Canon and the information of such is deemed uninspired, for if we are to take the Book of Enoch seriously, we always accept that Looney Toon-ish nature of the Book of Thomas, therefore, since such is not canon, Gabriel, An Angel of the Lord, is not an Archangel, so there is only one, hence the very meaning of what Archangel represents. It's not about being against something or not, just that the information is there, in context and understood. You can speak of the Watchtower all you want, the reality is, the belief that Jesus is Michael has been around before the Watchtower even existed, we are talking Apostolic Age levels is old here. And no, you have no reason to think that, God will punish those who are clearly Anti-Christ and against him, those against his laws for some of God's laws today's folk consider took brutal and or burdensome to even apply to the church, this also goes for what Jesus Christ himself entrusted the Church with in regards to maintaining the Church and being vigilant of anything accursed that might cause a stir among the people, that is the very same thing of which our 1st century brothers and sisters had done and in today's day and age, only a FEW are doing this or at least close to doing this and the same ones that are doing this are the ones who mainstream Christians do not like, to add more salt to injury, you have those in Islam who made this claim evident of those who do such things than you have those in the Agnostic Corner who is strict about those not following the early church. And as to what teachings you are saying they are changing and or flip flopping? As I said Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist Christians. Restorationist are known to apply Bible teachings over time and or make changes and adjustments to a Christian based lifestyle. Fact: Restorationism (also called Christian Primitivism) is the belief that Christianity has been or should be restored along the lines of what is known about the Apostolic Early Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age), which Restorationists see as the search for a more pure and more ancient form of the religion. Fundamentally, this vision seeks to correct faults or deficiencies (in the church) by appealing to the primitive church as a normative model. So in short, Jehovah's Witnesses of the Watchtower are hardcore Restorationist, and do not equal or try to be like mainstream Christianity, the form of Christianity that came about in and or around the 4th century and onward to this day whereas the practice of real Christianity was professed from the 1st century and onward until the 4th century, and as time progresses real Christianity is often batting heads with the New Christianity, in a simple sense the two Christian camps are obvious: Non-Trinitarianism and Trinitarianism. That being said, the issue of Jesus being Michael is not something of Jehovah's Witnesses' design, but rather, our early church brothers and sisters, so if that is a problem, of which you see, you will have to take it up with the practices of the ancient ones, for bringing up Watchtower will not help your resolve. Also the question I asked was a rather simple one, there is no need to evade it even though the answer is obvious. Like I said, the belief did not originate with the Jehovah's Witnesses, even in their Bible Student days, it never began with them. You only think it began with them because every mainstream New Ager Christian will make the claim that JWs came up with this when the reality is the hypocrisy shows when the truth of the matter is the belief of Jesus being Michael was around long before any Witnesses formed as a religious group, perhaps beyond that, thus, predating them. There are many people who are not even Jehovah's Witnesses that hold this belief, but it is absurd to say they are JWs for believing Jesus is Michael. Such ones often bring up the whole Jude 9 verse, yet shy away from Zechariah 3:2 for the very reason such cannot be refuted. The difference here is when one studies the Christology of Christendom, they come to the discover of the belief by research and study, but those who simply think otherwise, clearly do not make acknowledgment to this information, thus remaining one track minded, this is case, you have not utter a single word on the Apostolic Age view on Jesus being Michael, but rather, you bring up Watchtower/JW constantly in regards to this belief. So what of it then if you travel to somewhere in Thailand or perhaps Africa where there are those who believe that Jesus is indeed Michael, for they see Jesus as not just a Great Prince, but a Mighty Warrior chosen by God? Are you to make the claim they are Jehovah's Witnesses when clearly they are not? This is why understanding such beliefs is important instead of holding on to the ideas and views of disgruntled ones, moreover, even Apostle Paul himself made the claim of Jesus being an Angel, yet we do not see people going to war about it at all. And as to what explanation you are conveying? We already seen the viewpoint of Jude 9 but never of the cross-reference to the parallel verse. This one is simple: Shaliach Principle. I cannot tell you how many times over 2 decades this has been brought up. One fact about Shaliach Principle regarding God: Yahweh Himself speaking and that is because Yahweh Himself IS in fact speaking. He is speaking through an intermediary, through one of His messengers as His representative. This principle of agency (shaliach) is very common in the Scriptures especially with respect to Yahweh's messengers/angels. Note: It is also known as The Law of Agency Moreover, these 2 men (enosh) were 3 angels of God, Angels of the Lord, they were Sent by God Yahweh. Also you may want to look into the context and cross-references on this one because you are very close to defeating your own words. Let's not forget the hint we have of such ones when Moses was speaking to God. That being said, I have vast information of this passage and perhaps I may post it under Bible Discussion soon once I am done with John 1:1. Moreover, what is interesting is that now we are in the area of the mention of The Promised Abrahamic Seed, the one who is of David's Throne who is the same person to defeat Satan and His demons, for this one, was of God and exacts Judgement in God's name.

The irony is, we are talking about a belief that predates JWs by centuries upon centuries, and yet here we are, you are among the many who believe this is a doctrine not only professed by JWs, but originates with them. No not all teachings are the same, JWs are Restorationist, no different from their Apostolic Age counterparts, unless you are willing to prove otherwise, which is neigh impossible, and the relevance will be based among those who attack the faith, which is evident in the past on this forum. The spark of which I speak of is the practices of Christians from the Apostolic Age to now, but it is no surprise the mainstream Christians such as yourself do not see anything in regards to those of the Apostolic Age, which is the case with Cos, Defender and Matthew, who have little to no knowledge of such. In the JWs case, as with others, they are far from mainstream Christendom and will do everything in their power to uphold the teachings of the early church, the very reasons why they as a group is marked as Restorationist. Even before Russell, Restorationism was that fire that is decreasing the likes of the mainstream church that teaches something entirely different from the truth, therefore, what I have sate is absolute unbreakable fact. Ha, no, not quite. Let me enlighten you, the CSE community, of which I posted before, is the Christian Stack Exchange Community, for all are welcome to it, especially those who take biblical theology and history very very seriously. Where in God's name did you find journalism information? https://christianity.stackexchange.com https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com Pay us a visit, but best beware, we do not take kindly to falsehood and slander that is deemed problematic, you have to be absolutely neutral in what you have to say and what you do say. You still have not address the question I have asked of you, so I will post it again: if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven? There is only one who is of God who is in a position to have cast out the Devil from Heaven, who is that chosen one? Mind you, I have provided to you parallel verses already.

I was not mere thought, it was an example, an example posed before of in several Jesus/Michael arguments that have come to pass, re-read what I have written. I do not see how you are making the claim I am making this as an actual statement when the statement was posed after the example. Where have I stated Yahweh is not the savior himself? I am pretty sure I brought up Romans 10 many many times here. And no. Jesus is not greater than his Father, to even suggest that is absurd. if someone was sent by means of Shaliah Principle, that alone should tell you who has more authority over than other for it's functions as divine agents, Jesus, being a Representative of God. Shaliah Principle, simple as that, Angels come from El Shaddai himself, to save Lot and his household of what is to come for God was coming to destroy the city. Again, no where it is mention that YHWH's role as a savior is disqualified, let alone him acting through and by means of His Son, who is deemed a savior also. You technically repteat what you just said, but the princple of which the Law professes still applies. The fact you are taking my example out of context does not hold any foundation for this example I brought up, as stated, as been said before, therefore I make a response to such again here, and I ended the example with a statement to a fact. That being said, you still have not addressed the question in regards who among God's chosen ones cast Satan out of Heaven alongside his demons during the Great War, moreover, if we can say what you say about Michael not being able to rebuke Satan in the presence of his Father, let us say they are separate, why not make mention of Zechariah 3:2 as well when that is a verse in regards to pre-existence?

Indeed, however some people tend to take things out of context to spread something that is accursed. An example would be the belief in fiery torment when clearly God's view on the matter is seen in the Old Testament, or the belief that Jesus is God when Jesus claims to have a God, who is his Father. The early Christians knew many things, but later on we have those who do not understand and twist things, therefore it is always a fight to bring forth the truth centuries later to present day. Truth is like a spark of fire that never goes out, while the darkness itself is of those who teach something that is not of the Bible, eventually this fire will engulf the darkness and it has been growing day in and day out, even to the point that those not of the real Christian faith brings support to those who profess truth i.e. the people in the EU, to the West to Asia, etc.

Unfortunately for you, it is not the same terminology as you claim. I stated nowhere in the Bible your claim is proven, hence I quote you: According to my present understanding i would say that Michael acting under command of his King Jesus. If Jesus commanded Michael it would be evident, granted that all angels are under Jesus' command, let alone Jesus' clear confrontation with Satan and his Demons. This is the same case with those claiming that Jesus is not a King because he never called himself one, however the verses that connection to this notion exist in the Bible, that is, if one chooses to accept what is there. As for Jesus being Michael, there are clues and various parallel verses that proves this point, the very reason I addressed Jude 9 and Zechariah 3:2, oddly enough, you never made mention of the parallel verse. Let's not forget the others Revelations 12:7 to Revelations 19:14-16 which has to do with the Great War in Heaven. Daniel 10:21 and Matthew 23:10 regarding The Leader of Israel Daniel 12:1 to both Romans 8:34 and 1 Timothy 2:5 regarding an intervening for the people of God. Jude 9, which connects both to Zechariah 3:2 as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:16 And lastly there is Galatians 4:14. It would 100% a baseless terminology if there is no such parallel connections of Jesus being Michael, but unfortunately you have such connections for there is but one Prince who dealt with Satan and one who has the command of God's Army, and such a position of commanding this army is given to God's Chosen One. Your next problem would be Paul himself referring to Jesus as an angel, let alone the very information in regards to Jesus' pre-existence, and the obvious fact that he was sent (Shaliah). However, the question addressed still stands and I quote: A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven? y This does not only reside in the NWT Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses, so that is incorrect. The focus is pre-existence, before Jesus became flesh, a man, or in this simple sense, being born as a child to Mary, thus becoming human, and given the name Jesus, as well as Immanuel. And yes, Jesus is described as God's firstborn and only-begotten, mainly if you take into account the verses that connect with Genesis 1:26, clearly the Son was not named Jesus and or Immanuel at the time, nor was it alluded to, but this same person, according to Paul, this angel, was the one who took action as seen in the Old Testament and alluded to in the New Testament as seen in Jude and Revelations. As for the logic you are using on that final claim, that is kind of absurd. The name Michael means "Who Is like God?" (Quis ut Deus?) Jesus himself is of God and is God's only-begotten, mainly if you take into account of all the things he has gone through, death, being raised, etc. He is like God because he is God's Son, God the Father abides and does the works in his representative and God takes delight in his Son greatly, for Jesus is his beloved one by by means of His Son, we are saved and have a shot at being forgiven for our sins, as well as having this Bread and Water that is eternal life, being able to go through the door in order to reach the Father, etc. Now clearly if Jesus and Michael were indeed separate, than that would mean Michael is greater than Jesus for he is the people of Israel and the one who intervene and saved the people, that would disqualify Jesus' role as a Savior, let alone Jesus' position as a mighty warrior of God. That is not the case. Jesus is a warrior, he is a leader of the people, especially in regards to Israel, or in this case, The King of the Jews. He is the great one called The Word of God and leading God's Army he will not be coming to bring peace, but a Sword, and we know warriors carry swords and leading a vast army into battle, that is the role and position of Jesus, mainly in regards to him being exalted so it is no surprise that the Great Prince himself has the name of Michael, Jesus, as well as Immanuel, in addition to the titles and other names of which he is called. If we are to be honest, we should be aware of others having multiple names too, an example would be the Devil, making himself Satan, at the same time, he is referred to as Beelzebub a name that is applied to Satan who is also a prince, or ruler, but he is the leader of the fallen sons of God, demons, moreover, we know that in the Bible, religious leaders tend to blasphemously accused Jesus Christ of expelling demons by means of Beelzebub. So it is no surprise that Jesus having the name Michael or that of Immanuel, despite the many names and titles, it still equals to one person who is of God, the one person who is only-begotten, again, application of context speaks a lot of volume. therefore, this terminology having parallels and connections further proves this point, in addition to an Apostle referring to the Christ as an Angel and we know that there is but one Archangel who has command over all the others, hence God's Army. These are not my conclusions, if they were, the response would have been different, I bring up the information of those who hold this belief centuries ago, mainly the fact that such ones before us believe the only God is the Father and that Jesus is the Son. The terminology of which you claim shows no information of Jesus giving various command to someone else, let alone, so and so being possibly greater than Jesus, as you believe, but the reality is the two are one in the same, mainly if you take into account the parallel verses and the very fact that there was but one who cast Satan out of Heaven, a question I addressed I still await a response from you in this regard. As for me, I see this 100%, for us CSE members we have to fully grasp and understanding something clearly before accepting the conclusion of such Christology, in this case, Jesus being Michael, and we are aware that this belief was centuries ago and did not really start this late. What what is indeed missing is your view of the actual prince who really cast out Satan, for we have 2 parallel verses above, of which of the greatest among God was the one to throw the Devil out, based on your view?

@Nicole There will always be those who make websites and or other things to speak against a faith, Rick Fearon and Pearl are no different from Jay and David. The goal of the mainstream is to reap converts and nothing more for their cause, even if it means to exploit and or attack those of a religious minority. JWs are Restorationist, a group, a religious minority. They are even more of a target because rarely do JWs tend to fight back, in the realm of debate a well known Trinitarian got his just deserts when attacking JWs on the daily only to be made a fool of when a JW debated him.

@Witness Then do you support Rick's stance on Jehovah's Witnesses having weapon bunkers in the basement of their churches? I still have quotes from the biggest disgruntled JWs as well as the Anti-JW camp who hates ExJws and Jws on their say about Fearon. How you do comply with Rick Fearon's connection with this person, Byron Brown?: http://www.buffalospree.com/buffalospreemagazine//archives/2006_04/0406byronbrown.html Put it would seem, money talks when you have to attack a religious minority.  As for Pearl Doxsey, I am aware of this person as well, everything she says is against Jehovah's Witnesses belief and or teachings, but some of what she has address sparks a bit of hypocrisy also, for anyone can look into the teachings of early Christians and or the early Church to see the information for themselves. An example would be what she had to say on Michael the Archangel, since this is the topic of interest as of late here, she clearly speaks against the JWs on this belief, but does not shed any information on the fact that early Christians had the believe that Jesus was indeed Michael, moreover, no mention of a majority of Christians outside of the Watchtower who hold this view, namely to the fact that Jesus himself is a Warrior of God, the Promised Seed who was indeed the one to have thrown Satan out of Heaven, not to mention her clear acceptance of the practices of mainstream Christendom. The information you tend to put out, majority of it originates from her interpretation of the scriptures, as well as anything that is to attack JWs on specific beliefs, yet show a complete unawareness of those outside of mainstream Christendom who shed a similar and or if not, equal belief. Other than that, she is no different from David Wood, from Jay Smith and a list of other people who are not just part of the mainstream or have a man made understanding of scriptures in a majority of what they say, but part of those who do not shy away from alluding to targeting religious groups based on a a doctrine that did not originate with them. Other than that, it is no surprise because some of the things you posted from her, I believe I corrected you before, namely in regards to your confusion on Heavenly Jerusalem and Earthy Jerusalem. All that being said, we are focused on Rick Fearon, disliked by current JWs, former JWs, and Anti-Christians, as well as not liked by the Non-religious, namely those who found out that this Johnny person of his was indeed a fake. Now, for people leaving the Watchtower, that is their choice to make, no one is forcing someone to leave a faith or not, it's no different from others leaving a specific faith either of Christendom, of Islam and or of Judaism. People choose a faith of their liking because they believe it is the truth, for some faiths tend to be close to the truth than others, mainly within Christendom outside of the mainstream practices of this world's so called Christians. Pearl cannot speak for JWs in areas that is unknown to us, for she only speaks on those current EXJws who have left the Watchtower, you would not catch her speaking about JWs in a country like Egypt, or perhaps those in the Middle East who are JWs, granted in areas like that rarely do they leave their faith for their faith and community is like a tribe to them. And yes, this is known of Jesus in regards of the Living Water and why he himself is alluded to be the water as well (and can say the same as much for him being the bread, for this has been addressed yesterday), but making this quote has nothing to do with what you have said and or what is being addressed. Also next time, perhaps post the verse itself instead of a link to that verse, it is annoying If a man comes to speak against JWs and says they hold gun bunkers in their churches and are using them to kill those who do not believe them and or using said weapons to kill others in the last days, how is using Jesus' example in the right here? Let alone the remarks of those who listen to Rick Fearon make argument that wedding rings symbolizes a sexual pagan practice when in reality it does not? Mind you, A Greek Bible reading Christians refuted 3 disgruntled JWs who bring up Rick Fearon, as well as bringing up information from even EXJWs who made the claim they and everyone else do not support Rick Fearon on the other side of the spectrum Anti-JWs wish death upon this blind man,, how do you make the argument if you support such a man who is clearly in the attack of JWs to gain more converts as well as a financial gain? You are aware of Rick's practices, right?  As for the verses you never seen to post directly, only by link, I did the work for you: Matthew 9:10-13 -Jesus Calls Matthew - (10) And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. (11) And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (12) But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. (13) Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”  Malachi 4:5 - The Great Day of the Lord - “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.  Malachi 4:6 - The Great Day of the Lord - And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”  John 7:37 - Rivers of Living Water - On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.  Matthew 4:4 - The Temptation of Jesus -  But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”  Matthew 17:11 - The Transfiguration - He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things.  Revelation 11:3 - The Two Witnesses - And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”  Revelation 11:4 - The Two Witnesses - These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. You also missed John 4:14, 6:35 and 7:2, and the clearly connecting of verses that do not connect with each other, as you have done before, is evident and seen here, why continue to make this mistake? If one has to make a specific point about Jesus being the water and or the bread, they seek out the verses as well as the cross-references that do connect to make this point, thus making an example of such a passage, it is not difficult.Lastly this day that is mentioned in John 7:37 is in regards to the 7th day of the Festival of Tabernacles (or Booths) on Tishri 21, for it was called The Great Day of The Festival, of which is seen in the passage that contains the Shema command/Law, Deuteronomy 16:13 (13-15) The Feast of Booths (13) “You shall keep the Feast of Booths seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your winepress. (14) You shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your towns. (15) For seven days you shall keep the feast to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.

3 things that disproves Jesus being God 1. God has a mediator, the first being Moses, the second being Jesus, therefore if Jesus is God he would need a mediator due to the laws of mediatiorship, but clearly Jesus isn't God, therefore the only God is the Father, YHWH, and his mediator, first, was Moses, the second mediator, being Jesus, Paul even stated this in 1 Timothy 2:5 2. God cannot die, he is incorruptible for that in itself is in his nature, 1 Timothy 1:17, Romans 1:23, Habakkuk 1:12, etc. God is not subjected to death like men, but Jesus, being flesh has succumb to death and was only made alive again because of God, moreover, the Bible says several times God is not like man or son of man (Jesus however is a man and is a son of man), and according to Job, as seen in chapter 9, it is said God is not like us men, and we know mortal man is corruptible (moral), not God, for God is incorruptible (immortal). 3. God cannot profess a Law of which he made,for such a law, the foremost one, is one only the Jews practice. Jesus being a born Jew profess this law since he was a child well into his adulthood, the law in question is Shema Yisrael, the same law of which Paul affirmed, as did others in the Bible, even Jesus himself. Nowhere in the Bible it is read and or seen that God profess the Law, however, God himself is the one who MADE this, which is seen in the Torah, Deuteronomy 6:4, to which Jesus affirmed in Mark 12:28-34 and Paul, 1 Corinthians 8:6. Any man or woman who affirms this Law affirms HE/SHE has a God who is their Father, they also acknowledges to be heard by their God and Father, which was the case in the Bible, with Jesus and Paul being clear examples. As for the verses mentioned on OP 1. John 20:27-28 I have explained in detail, simply look at to what has been address in 100% context to this passage (click hyperlinked text). Also if we are to be honest, if we are to make the claim that Jesus is God, we would also have to explain what Jesus made in John 20:17. Thomas was not present when Jesus risen and he didn't believe, simply read John 20 all the way up to the final verse, that alone proves to you that Jesus wanted Thomas to believe he has risen, to believe that he is from the Father. Also in order to break the hypocrisy, Thomas himself was with Mary and Jesus prior to Lazarus' resurrection as to which Mary even made mention of Jesus Father in front of Thomas, for if Thomas really thought Jesus to be God, surely he would have said something when Mary was there. 2. John 1:1, this is a common verse use by Trinitarians to prove Jesus is God, when one can simply look at Deuteronomy 18:18 and the entirety of John's Introduction chapter, which disproves the claim that Jesus is God. Since the Greek is in use here, what OP has not address is this part in the Greek: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" Op will say what he says yet fail to inform that ho theos differs from Theon. (theón | theòs ho) Moveover, OP is using the 1245 Textus Receptus of the verse, the original in Koine Greek is written out this way in Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. So in short, the Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through Jesus in his ministry and the Word he proclaimed was the proclamation of God the Father Himself, the Word was God. He who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works he did. God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father's Love, dead flesh hanging on the cross for your sins and mine. The Word of God was something the flesh named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father's Word. Jesus' words and works were not his own but the Father's. The Word as proclaimed by Jesus... was God, for the Word of which Jesus speaks is God's Spoken Word. 3. Hebrews 1:8, this has been explained many times before, this simply means the writer of Hebrews describing how the exalted Jesus now has the authority of God's throne, that is, Jesus, with God given authority and power being seated at the right hand of God, hence throne. It is always good to remember, never read a verse AS IT, continue to read for context, read the chapter, the cross-references, etc, to better understand what the passage is trying to convey, in this regard, John or perhaps that of Paul, Peter, etc. That is why God wants us to learn his Word, in that of which we seek and find truth of which the mainstream Christendom is withholding from the people.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. But then you have to worry about these  Cameras catch and see everything and everyone, just like how cameras were able to catch this guy (also this is why the Bible tells us to avoid/abstain drunkenness, otherwise you'll end up on YouTube).   At the end of the day, the only one who sees everyone and everything is God.

You do realize even outside of religious institutions, Secular Law and those of it can override the position and or say of a parent an or Guardian? If a man wants to use his child as a scam, those of the Law can jail this man and take his child away to Child Protective Services, and even the CPS are not as good either because a lot of kids die in their care, it is the worse in the US. If I was of the law and you had your child do something crazy, I have the power to override your position as a parent and or what you say for anything and everything you can do will be obsolete an the child will be coming with him and moving the child elsewhere, to another guardian and or protective services that do not let the children die. The whole FamilyOFive situation also further proves me point.

This guy, Rick Fearon, is the same guy who said Jehovah's Witnesses have a bunker under their churches that houses Assault Rifles, Firearms, explosives, and handguns, for he has some believing that JWs will literally go all guns blazin' in the last days and or against those who do not agree with them. In addition to poisons so that they use to kill their members. This is the same man who posed claim to wedding rings referencing the sex organs of both male and female, in short, a sexuality form of paganism and the like. I have seen these claims of his refuted and Rick Fearon is only attacking JWs to gain money and to get some converts, for he was exposed by disgruntled JWs, as well as those who hate both JWs and ExJws combined aka the Anti-JWs, so to use this man's information as a support, only destroys your credibility further, out of all people, you use this Fearon guy? That is both shameful and embarrassing. And no, JWs do not have vials of acid or machetes stashed in their charts. Fearon is as blasphemous as his own teachings and money grabbing schemes, and going with what even the hateful few have said, this man will take his hate to the grave with him. He is just as bad ass the people who promote Islamic Hatred, mainly the man who caused the whole school Quran hate situation some years ago.

@Nicole Not all banks, to name a few, ones such as Morgan Stanley and or Barclays, you can go from banker to help desk eventually to project manager for infrastructure/computer migration, and eventually senior project manager, you can secure a position with Dell, HP and the like to get workers via Recruiter and for such ones the cycle repeats itself. Career paths vary for some and each path opens door to opportunity, in the end, what is important is making a living to cloth and put a roof over yourself and anyone of whom you wish to live your life with and have children with, things like that, a help would be friends and relatives. But yeah, all that life and experience I have in this category, give back things to Caesar and at the end of the day you do what is right and needed in the eyes of God. One thing for certain, there is a lot of hate and discrimination in the world place, I had quite a lot of that, but never has it stopped be from doing what is needed, this goes for everyone, regardless of who they are, and the examples can be seen, mainly with those who have succumb to homelessness, a community of which I take part in helping when I have the opportunity. At the end of the day, it is the choice of the individual, one can encourage someone to do something, but it is always up to the individual, regardless of their age, race or sex, to make that choice. Therefore, I really do not see the freak out over a choice that is not of our own, but of the individual, some people love banker jobs.

The fact you ignore God's Law in regards to the use of foul language pretty much says it all, as if the comedian post was enough days ago. Other than that, I do not see why the the fuzz about doing more for God, not all the time higher education gets you where you want to go and even if it did, a ball and chain will be strapped to you until a 6 foot grave is dug for you and to Sheol you go, and the rat race cycle continues for this dream that cannot be reached unless you kick people while they are done and make your wife appear as a trophy to show off to your friends. The only thing you need is a trade which you can learn in several months to 4-5 years and you are good, to become a slave to the society of the world you will not last long, but the mainstream adapts to what is being punished out. Other than that, there is hypocrisy, for if someone else of another faith chooses to do missionary work rather than go to School, we treat such ones as saints, what is different with them compared to this faith? The same could be said about those being persecuted and thrown into jail, you praise one, but to the other you wish for him or her to die and or suffer in jail because of their faith.

We are sticking to the bible, Jesus is the life because by means of His Father, God gives life to the Son an through the Son, the very reason why Jesus is the Messianic King that God had chosen. He is the bread because by means of having faith in him we have eternal life itself, he is the door because by means of him we can reach God the Father, he is the wine because it represents his blood and what his blood enable upon his death and resurrection, the same implication with what the bread does, he is the water because His Father is the source of living water and only from him and through his Son, Jesus Christ, Chief Agent of life, can men receive eternal life, moreover, this is very explicit when you take into context of what Jesus had said to the Samaritan woman in John 4:7-15. Jesus is alluded to as the rock, Isaiah 8:14, and as this rock in regards to the houses of Israel who stumbled. That may be the case, but as I have said before, look at the cross-references, than make the answer, perhaps understand as to why Jesus was called and or alluded to be such things. That being said, in regards to this, it does not matter the translation because the information is there when context is applied. god and or godlike ones, none of them are God no matter how you try to knock it. And the deal with that is because of a Law of which the Most High had made mention of, the same law that originated with him, even in the days of Moses, onward into the days of Jesus as well as Paul,even today this Law exists as much as the ten commandments exist. I mentioned the verse because you made a claim in regards to John's Introductory which included the Genesis Act of Creation and onward. Jesus is indeed a god for if we are to remember correctly, Jesus was a born Jew out of a woman, born into the Law, everything he says in regards to what is written comes from the Law, this includes that men such as himself and others are called gods/godlike because God himself had spoken this into the Law itself. That being said, you also stated Micheal is not a god, whether you believe Jesus is Micheal or not, any bene elohim of elohim is an elohim, in English any sons of God is a god/godlike. This includes Jesus, and if you believe him and Micheal are separate, it includes both, regardless of what you think of it, for that is the Law, and the Law is of God. I believe I made the explanation, it is whether you choose to accept it or not. But it may be evident you may not believe that Jesus pre-existed and didn't dare to overstep authority in the presence of God way before even being baptized. For if the bible explains Jesus' pre-existence, if his name was not Micheal, you would have to explain who was really not trying to overstep authority in the presence of God for He was not named Jesus or Immanuel for he was not sent yet and or born in the flesh. In fact, all Spirit Beings, even Jesus at that time would not dare do such in front of God. And as to what point you are trying to prove with Revelations 1:1? This was in regards to the risen Christ himself. That is simple, because even in those times Jesus himself had been given many names and titles, for we know Jesus is of God because he is the Son, he is the Word for he speaks the Word of God, hence even in Revelations he is called the Word of God, as well as the Lamb. A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven? In the book of Daniel, it speaks of the Great Prince and this same one was the one who took action on his own without the limitations of not overstepping authority in the presence of God. As I said, Satan could not have been defeated twice by 2 armies when God has one Army of Angels that has a sole leader. Another factor would be that Satan could not have been cast out of Heaven twice, when this only took place one time regarding the Great War in Heaven, for God has appointed the greatest among his sons to lead such an army, for some it is evident that a King led such an army and this same army will be returning, led by the King, to enact God's justice against the wicked. If you have forgotten, Jesus went into the wilderness right after baptism, authority and power by means of the Holy Spirit was on him and Jesus himself had the Father abiding in him, the very reason the temptation passage shows specific attempts Satan tried to get Jesus, as well as Satan's clear awareness that Jesus is God's Son, moreover, Jesus quoted the law in each temptation attempt Satan made and eventually afterwards, angels came to minister to Jesus, thus afterwards Jesus began the spreading of the good news gospel. Moreover, Jesus himself also knew it was pointless to deal with the closed mind of the Devil, but he knew a day will come when God exalts him, he will enact God's judgement on Satan and dealing with him swiftly, regardless of him being in the presence of God the Father or not, but it is evident that God is with him always. Jude 9 is also parallel to Zechariah 3:2, to which even Trinitarians see this same verse that Jesus himself is speaking, yet they try not to brush over the connection to Jude 9. As for Jesus' pre-existence, he as with all angels were in no position to overstep authority in the presence of God 2 Peter 2:11 - whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. That in itself should tell you as to why Jesus said what he said before he became a man, and what he said as a baptized man to Satan and eventually later, as a King of the Spiritual House, what he will do and how he will deal with Satan. And no, I am not making the claims, simply using biblical facts and history of Christology based on such a belief, if it was indeed a claim, the information would be lacking. Anyways in short Pre-existence Jesus was not exalted, he was not given authority and power and clearly was not sent yet, therefore, he was in no position to enact authority before the Father, as with the other Spirit Beings, which was the case in regards with the corpse of Moses. As a human, Baptism Jesus had the Father abiding in him, and at this point in time it was clear that the one who has come to represent the Father and speak His Word, was sent, even Jesus made the claim that such as been fulfilled when he spoke at the Synagogue of Nazareth when handed the Scroll of Isaiah as well as his encounter with the Samaritans. Jesus was able to rebuke Satan until Satan went away, for at this point it is clear that Jesus had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for before he went into the wilderness, he had been baptized. Resurrection Jesus returned to heaven as sat at the right hand of God, was exalted above the other angels and returns to his position as well as given some evident promotion in terms of God's purpose and will. Jesus, leading the army of God will indeed return, for He, who is the Grt Prince will be coming with a Sword in hand to enact God's Justice on the day of God. Jesus was also the one responsible for casting out Satan and his Demons for He, the promised Seed, is the very one who is to deal with Satan and put an end to his evil once and for all, for that is what a King is and what he will do. As for your other response: There is nowhere in the Bible that Jesus is giving command to Michael. God had only one person deal with Satan and his demons in the Great War in Heaven, the answer should be obvious of who was really leading the angels. Â

@Brother Rando When it comes to verses like 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3 Trinitarians will believe as what is seen here, in addition, they also make the claim that Jesus is the exact image of God, therefore Jesus is God, which is false. The facts that come straight out of the Bible shows that this language is referring to the Christ himself being before everything, as well as allude to Jesus' resurrection of which God has raised him out of the dead.

@ShariKind Most Trinitarians use the King James Version (KJV), as well as the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible, some will tend to use the New International Version (NIV) and or the American Standard, be it New and or Revised (AS, NASB, RAS). At times the Revised Standard Version (RSV), for the RSV is the go to for Modalist and Homosexuals also when it comes to defending a practice that does not originate with God. This Trinitarian in particular is using the New World Translation, NWT in a majority of his post, however, he never quotes a verse directly, saying just says the book, chapter and verse only majority of the time, rarely a quite and ignores the cross-references. If I am not mistaken, the NWT itself literally holds your hand when it comes to cross-references to a passage and or verse, but he does not use it, in fact, Trinitarians only use cross-references to support their belief, an example would be 1 Peter 1:1 and 2, they will use this verse, but never go to verse 3 because it defeats the purpose of their belief, or John 10:30, yet they never go to John 10:16, 10:48, 17:11, 17:21-26. As for questions, you can simply make a list of them, perhaps me or someone else can answer some. It would seem the surprise of which I have spoken of has been revealed to you, as expected, this is why I compare Deserter to the preacher known as Bob the Builder, for Bob has resurfaced again with his outlandish claims and trying to start a fight with someone who knows the Bible better than him.