Space Merchant

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If i understand this "principle" that means something like this: My college Mark, from work place (or he must not be my college from work, he can be from another Company inc.), was sent by Principle of the school and tell me; "Srecko, Mr. Principle said that you have to go to post office and send this letter. My respond (by Shaliach Principle) to Mark is; "Very well Sir Principle i do as you said to me Sir Principle" :))))

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.

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please tell me who and when was collected manuscripts and decide that they are inspired or uninspired? Was that one person or more? Was that collector/s inspired while choosing text, letters, manuscripts, copies of manuscripts? 

If first original text has been inspired because original writer was inspired on what to write, was people who made copies and copies of copies also inspired and guided by same spirit who has been behind first writer/writing?  

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.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

⁹ 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!”^[a]

² The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

Sorry, but my intellectual, spiritual and other qualifications can not see and are not able to explain what in this two verses is same or similar or different or opposite to each other in relation to subjects; Michael, Lord 1 and Lord 2 and Lord 3 and Lord 4. 

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.

13 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

That’s a reasonable assumption since no one really mentions the book of Enoch and the book of Tobit. But in the hierarchy, there are several archangels by which, Michael would still be the first given his status of authority.

Now according to history? There are 7 archangels, 1 of which you referenced, Gabriel. But according to the zodiac, there are 12, 1 for each sign. Ironically, Michael is not among them while Gabriel and Rafael are. Why? Would this be significant to theology? In the book of Apocalypse, in chapter 7, it mentions 4 angels standing at the 4 corners of God. Who are these angels? Folklore suggests it is Michael, Gabriel, Rafael, and Uriel. But, as a theologian? Who can you compare within the book of Mark Chapter 16 as sitting in the right-hand of God? Once again we have an inference between Jesus and Michael.

Now for those that don’t believe in God? These 4 angels were transformed to the 4 elements of nature. Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water. I mentioned the elements earlier.

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.

13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Angel of the Lord (or JHVH) 

Who is he? Angel of the Lord. 

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.

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If someone came to answer how he is Jesus or Michael or Word or Gabriel or .... i do not have nothing against.

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.

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I expressed my opinion about Michael and why i think how he can not be firstborn Word. Wrong or right my life not depend on what i thing about that issue. If God want to "punish" me because i have wrong conclusion about it (you believe i am wrong) then i am not lonely. :)) Why you think how i must have answer on "Bible" questions while in same time all those clever people in WT Company changed many "Bible" teachings and expecting of flock to believe flip-flop doctrines. 

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.

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If you belong to JW then you are perhaps aware of Known Fact about WT teaching on same matter, for many years  for WT bible scholars -  Michael the Archangel was Roman Catholic Pope. On what Bible verses, reasoning, facts, spirit guided Company (organization) founded such explanation? Obviously on  same that later make new explanation :))))

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.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Question for thinking: Who where "angels" that visited Abraham and Lot?

in Genesis 18:1-3 Abraham addressed the three visitors as ‘Jehovah’. The two who left to visit Sodom, Lot called them ‘Jehovah’ (19:18), yet the one who remained, Abraham continued to address Him as ‘Jehovah’ (18:22,26,27,30,31,32,33)

You have 3 angels. What was their names, rank, title, entity. Was one of them Michael great prince or Gabriel or some other highly positioned archangel, cherub, seraphs, angel messenger, angel guardian, angel investigator, angel warrior, angel punisher  ... and so on?     

-things are not where we would like them to be
-things are not where we think they should be
-things are not always where they should be

:))

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.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

hehe, this is some sort of irony. If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Well, that obviously means how WT was never in position to have real truth, all truth, Gods truth,  because if they had the truth from first day in 19th century when CT Russell create this Company, all teachings would be the same today too. Looks like "spark of fire" are lost somewhere, somehow. 

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.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

is this what you mean with CSE?

CSE members are associated with some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

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.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Rev 12:5,6 

“And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” 

12:7 " Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back."

"son, shepherd, child" is that Lord Jesus Christ? just borne and in next moment he fight with devil, but not as the King of Kingdom but as  Michael (just Michael without any prefix archangel, angel, prince....)??

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.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why you think that Michael (one entity) intervention disqualify Jesus as Savior ???

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.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how Jesus Christ intervention in saving people in Armageddon would disqualify JHVH role as Savior and make him greater than JHVH!!

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.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how angels who went to Lot and his family to take them away (to save their life) from city of Sodom and Gomorrah disqualify JHVH role as Savior and made them greater than JHVH!  

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.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how Moses, who was also sent, to free Israel nation from Egypt disqualify JHVH role  as Liberator and Lider  and make him greater than JHVH!!

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?

6 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Then we all need to understand how the ancients thought not just in biblical terms but in every day, overall understanding of Gods. That’s the determination and correction Jesus was attempting to make, away from the Pharisees way of thinking.

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.

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

With same way of proving things, we can also conclude how nowhere in Bible said that Michael is The Son. That specific terminology are used only about Jesus in human life. With big S. All other creatures, heavenly and earthly are sons, with small letter s. If that mean something. Or big and small S,s are product of grammar that rises with time.

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

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In WT literature, Bible (not any mentioned of Michael with this particular and most important information with this title, position, description) Only Jesus prehuman existence is described as he is "God's firstborn Son", and Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.   Again, is it possible to find in Bible some text with;  Michael the Son, Michael God's firstborn Son and  Michael only-begotten Son?  

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.

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Does this observation giving proof for your or mine conclusions. Or we both missing something to see. Everything is possible. At the end of the day, no one of us see things as they really are. :))

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.Â’ 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.

On 7/8/2018 at 5:11 PM, Jack Ryan said:

He is a moron. And since when is elders advice to override a parent? Where where mom or dad or guardian at this time. Not once mentioned.

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.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:11 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

If we want to stick to Bible text and his own word, he said about self: "I am life, truth, way, bread, door, light, wine, water, rock ... " 

...so if translation are credible, he not only "expressed" those qualities, but all of that are his essence, his being, his self. 

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.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:23 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

...so all angels with princes and chief princes and archangel are in fact - GODS :)) Ok, and what with that? Humans are gods, angels are gods. I now that verse you cited. If they all are gods that not explained Is angel Michael became Jesus the Human or not.   

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.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him" ... not to Michael  that is firm state from Revelation 1:1

If we believe that this book was written in the end of first century, and Jesus the Human was resurrected in the year 33, ...so why he still have the name Jesus if his heavenly name, original name and identity is Michael the Archangel??? 

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.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:47 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

I do not think the same. If Jesus is Michael the Archangel and vice versa,  he have all authority over every single angel. Devil is also angel and his status, position is inferior in respect to same person identity, no matter if you named him Jesus or Michael, because you claim how both name are point out in fact the same person. 

Jesus the Human, rebuked satan few times while in desert and finally command devil to go away from him, so your arguments are weak. So, if Michael is the same person as Jesus, how come that he as Archangel in heaven can not done more than as Human on earth? 

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: 

According to my present understanding i would say that M?ichael ac?ting und?er comm?a?nd of his Ki?ng Jesus.

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.

 

@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.

On 7/9/2018 at 8:49 PM, Jesus.defender said:

Again, multiple things in one topic. i remember why i stopped replying to you.

I am only going to address the james white follower accusation as i think i have addressed your other lies elsewhere.

You are mistaken, my friend.

i do NOT follow any man. i disagree with james white on more than one point. He is a calvinist which is anti-Christian. Just because i post a video of his, that means i am his "follower"? Do YOU "follow" every person you quote?

However, he DOES know how to explain things like the "trinity" far better than I can.

Just like the jehovahs witnesses are anti-Christian, yet in some points they put Christians to shame.

You have to eat the meat and spit out the bones.

I can list other people too:

No, not multiple topics, you brought up James White, I simply made mention of everyone who not only refuted James White, but those who refute the Trinity itself. I do not care if you reply to me or not, I make responses direct and or indirectly, for this is evident.

If you do not follow him, then why play his game? Let alone bring support about the Trinity by bringing up an old video of his that has been refuted up and down Hyde Park? You say you do not follow any man but you take up strongly to Christian Infighting, a design of men. Also you didn't quote Mr. White, you posted his video to justify the Trinity, if you quoted him there would be several quotes in his name rather than a video to prove a belief - know the difference.

He does because he believes in the Trinity, he also believed that Mary didn't mean what she said when she met with Gabriel and that the Laws of the Jews were not that important, hence his Trinitarian stance, example he eludes John 17 when speaking of John 10:30 and acts like a bully to anyone who proves him wrong, for White is known to go after the inexperienced and even advocates for Infighting, the very reason why people steppe up against him and refute him greatly.

Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist, they do not adhere to the mainstream Christian practices, they adhere to the practices of the early Church of the 1st century, if they are anti-Christians, they why bring up those who explain the Trinity when they too speak of the early church of which they do not follow? Hypocritical.

As for spitting out the bones, the hungriest of men will devour both meat and bone in order to survive.

Does not matter how many Trinitarians you throw, they all have been refuted in the past and discovered for some falsehood.

Robert Morey (pastor), He is the founder of the unaccredited California Biblical University and Seminary as well has his strong hate for Islam and those that practice it, and he enacts and prompts Christian Infighting who do not share his belief You cannot preach about love then go around your own back and preach that blasphemers should get the worse coming for them, that is a message that does not even sit well with most Trinitarians, which is fact.

Walter Ralston Martin is an American Baptist Christian minister, to some extent, more of a Protestant also and somewhat of an odd interest in the Trinity believing version of Jehovah's Witnesses known as the Seventh-Day Adventist. This pastor has quite the controversy around him and deeming everyone has cultist for not sharing His view of mainstream Christendom, in regards to the Watchtower, it is and will always be known that Restorationist like them, do not follow that of mainstream Christendom, hence the claims and attacks coming from Mr. Martin. He is only brought up by former JWs in order to prove a faulty point, rarely he is mention as much on those who share his belief. Mr. Martin, like Morey, share a connection in the Kairos Movement, this movement being of Babylon.

Ravi Zacharias is no different from the other two, but he is a hardcore Trinitarian, I only know of him because of a Youtuber named Mario aka The Vigilant Christian, of whom I refuted years ago, for anyone who proves Mario wrong, he make lies and hate messages towards such a person, he got his just deserts last year though when exposed. Anyways, Ravi is a strong advocate of the Kairos Movement like his current day counterparts and the late ones it should be known to you by now those who dislike JWs also do not want any part of the Kairos Movement, it is no surprise you post Ravi's video to prove your belief, not realizing what he is in connection with. Moreover, he has a strong bases with the the Charismatic Preachers scene.

Jeff Durbin, it is no surprise you are a fan, I made mention of this false teacher for his defense on a practice that has a strong connection to Druidism and Shamanism and a whole mixed bag of other things. What I have already said about this pastor I need not say again, another thing to mention for a pastor who says he is of God why be part of something that caused ESRB to even exist in the realm of video games, for there is a reason why you see E,T,M, etc. for a very very gore-filled and violent game was the cause of it, and a pastor, Jeff Durbin, had involvement in such a game. A man of God does not play a game or add his talents to a game such as Mortal Kombat, it would seem this pastor, was awed by the tearing of one's skull and spine from one's body. Other than that, Jeff is a Trinitarian, to make matters worse, he teaches to ignore God's Laws, which was the case with the post made by Matthew69 a while back, and I only brought it up when I mistaken Shwili for Matthew.

What all these pastors have in common is the Kairos Movement, the very religious movement in connection with E.I.I. that seeks to gather all religious leaders as well as promote a gospel that differs from the Bible itself, twisting the Bible even, and everyone knows such a group is the religion of the Harlot, the very one that consist of false teachers. Perhaps next time, try looking up someone who has no connection to such a Movement, lastly, some laws that is NOT of Christian origin, such pastors and their churches practice, an example would be adding the Law of Levities inside the Church when this Law is NOT something to be applied by Christians, this is but one of many things.

As much as I do not like James White for seeing the Law as nothing special and or of importance, this man is not a Calvanist, nowhere have I seen him speak of TULIP in a respect he shows to the belief of a Triune God. It's no surprise you through the man under the boss despite trying to prove your belief with his information, the same can be said of the others, if anything, Jeff Durbin himself is a Calvanist, mainly when you look into what he had said in regards to his interpretation of John  chapter 6.

Deserter, I know every teacher, pastor, bishop, scholar, early father, women ministers of bible times, etc. In the way I was brought up, to tame the fire you must understand it, in this sense, I know of every teacher there is, those who make the effort to follow the Bible, those who are confused, those who are far from Bible truth, etc, and all the pastors you have mentioned, are clearly far from the truth, they adhere to the Trinity doctrine when they believe that even the early church was not Trinitarian, they are not really fans of the Law of God, as seen with Jeff and James, and lastly, these men all share a connection in the religion of Babylon, the tendrils of said religion lies in E.I.I, Lucis Trust,  and anything of and or connected to  The Kairos Movement.

So I welcome you to try and refer and or post information from a Pastor that share the same belief as you that is NOT of the Kairos Movement an or have anything connection to it, a task that will be quite the challenge.

You will have to do better than that for even these men cannot save your believe when it comes your understanding of the Bible, which is evident in your response to Anna, to which you were in the wrong.

15 hours ago, Cos said:

Looking at the latest series of post, one prevailing view, which one person was so adamant about that he felt the need to end his comments with the word “PERIOD” as if that makes what he says more prominent?

We are going by what the Bible says and a total respect to the language, that is why what was said before is true, mainly in regards to John 14 and 16 as to where your Greek was called into question and the very fact that even your own source proved you wrong.

15 hours ago, Cos said:

When scoffers challenge the Deity of Christ they complain that Christ died on the cross, so that proves that He isn’t God. Of course, these objectors usually introduce a problem of their own, defining death as annihilation. They believe that when someone dies, they cease to exist.

Jesus is not God for many different reasons, but he is a god/a godlike ones according to the Law of the Jews, even Jesus brought that up in John chapter 10, and later on, Apostle Paul also brought it up, both quoting not just the law, but what God had said about his sons in Heaven and on Earth, for these god/godlike ones are not only of Spirit Beings, but of us humans as well, hence the Judges of Israel, etc. Jesus was in the right to speak of the law against Jews that were blinded by Satan.

Death is ceasing to exist, if you want annihilation, if it is ever so obvious, those of mankind only die once and cease, to dust they came to dust they return, conscious of nothingness, to some a void of darkness, a cease of activity, etc. One is destroyed for good upon the Second Death, in a sense, like permanently deleting a file from your computer, therefore, gone for good as if it never existed.

And God terminates the wicked, he does not watch them suffering in agony day in and day out, if that was the case, you paint God as something entirely different and ignore of how he FELT as to what the people were doing to their sons and daughters, God stated stuff like that would never cross his mind.

On to the next point, God cannot die he is the literal life-giving force the same one who gave life to Jesus after he was crucified. God is a God to you, me and all of those in life, as well as those who had perished and chained up in the pangs of death, Death itself is the last enemy of which God will deal with once his purpose and will has been accomplished. Moreover, God is not like us men, according to Job, and in various passages in the Hebrew Old Testament, God is not a man nor is he a son of man, God's primary nature is incorruptibility, in plain English incorruptibility means Immortality, one who is unable to succumb to and or taste death at all

In the Dictionary incorruptibility means not subject to death and or decay, for one is everlasting. Immortality means living forever, eternal life, therefore, God cannot taste death regardless of what you say and or think, however Jesus can because Jesus came to represent his Father as a man, flesh, roam among the people and the like, preached the good news gospel until he was killed, and him being a man, Jesus was corruptible/moral, both words meaning the state of being subject to death can be corrupted, in this case, to dying.

And one of the most evident things is this man, Jesus, cried out to God, and later on, we see in Acts, and or anything that Paul had written, that God raised Jesus out of the pangs of death, and eventually, Jesus ascended to his Father after giving instruction to his disciples and the reward that is to come from the Father, this reward, The Holy Spirit, last I recall, I told you to read Acts 1 and 2 and you ignored those chapters.

15 hours ago, Cos said:

What does the Bible teach that death is? It is not annihilation; it is separation.

Death is ceasing to exist, to perish be conscious of nothing. Some fear it greatly, some do not shed fear of it but deep down inside they do, others do not care if they die but they worry about friends and family around them, some choose death as a noble sacrifice and or for a radicalized false reason, others accept it knowing they protect something or someone and or maintain a faith in something knowing that even if they die, God knows of their actions.

Death becomes, in a sense, like annihilation when you are dead for good, ceasing totally with no chance of eternal life, therefore, in a sense, you are deleted from this world like a computer file, once it is gone, it is gone for good.

God gives life, eternal life, to those worthy of it, to those righteous, to those meek, to those that truly attempt to seek him, but keep running into obstacles, etc.

To say it is a separation it is as though you believe in the Afterlife, for it is common for Trinitarians to believe this, but what they forget is the very fact that Jesus is the first of the fruits and was the only one to had risen to Heaven and eventually those chosen will follow and only them.

15 hours ago, Cos said:

When Christ died, He did not cease existing. His body went into the grave, and His soul went into the compartment of departed spirits (compare Luke 16:19-31; Sheol (or Hades) contained two compartments, one of these was known as Abraham’s Bosom or paradise, the abode of the faithful dead, the other being tartarus for the wicked).

You do realize that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable - right? In fact, verses 1-10 in this chapter is also a parable, The Parable of the Dishonest Manager, the other being verses 19-31, The Rich Man and Lazarus. Other than that, Sheol, also known as Hades, is known as the grave to some, to others they simply see it as buried in Sheol or taken [down] to Sheol, but in most translations they refer to both Sheol and Hades as Hell, to add further confusion, Gehenna, in some translations is also refereed to as Hell, hence why people confused the two, for you cannot throw the lake of fire into the lake of fire.

In these parables, Jesus was teaching a very important lesson and about the things to come by means of these parables.

As for Jesus, if we are referring to 1 Peter 3:19, it points to both 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. It also should be evident of what those Spirits are, and they are not deceased humans as you believe, if anyone is honest, they would understand that these so called Spirits are the wicked ones, of whom are reserved for judgement, the demons, those who have rebelled against God.

Moreover, Jesus did Jesus preach to these spirits in prison, for Peter wrote that this occurred after Jesus only after Jesus was made alive in the Spirit, we see this clearly in 1 Peter 3:18, 19, adding up to verse 22 for this point:

(18) For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, (19) in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, (20) because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (21) Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (22) who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

When Peter mentioned that Jesus' proclamation and or that he preached, it is obvious that Peter was using past tense, which suggests that such an event in regards to preaching took place before Peter wrote his very first Epistle (letter). Sometime after Jesus' resurrection, Jesus made a proclamation to the wicked spirits, the demons that rebelled, regarding the fully justified punishment they are due to receive on the day of God's judgement. This wasn't a preaching herald good hope, but something of which they will get what is coming to them when God enacts judgement on such Spirits, therefore, it was a preaching and or proclamation of judgment, this is very similar to the actions of Jonah, of whom God had sent to Nineveh, see Jonah 1:1, 2. it is done in similar fashion in regards to the Jesus to the demons.

Jonah Flees the Presence of the Lord

• (1) Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, (2) “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.”

Furthermore, Jesus had demonstrated his faith and loyalty to the day of his death, well into the day of his resurrection, for he had proved that Satan the Devil indeed had no hold on him, thus being victorious over the Great Serpent, in addition, Jesus had the basis for making such a a great proclamation, again, this can be seen in the chapters mention before, John 14 and 16, more specific 30 in 14 and 8-11 in 16. Soon, Jesus will bind up and then cast Satan the Devil into the the abyss along with the fallen ones that follow him, see Luke 8:30, 31 and Revelations 20:1-3. Until that time comes, these Spirits, the fallen ones who had rebelled, called Demons who are in rebellion against God, are in a condition vast spiritual darkness, and what is to come for them in regards to their final destruction is very, very certain and the day is slowly coming to when judgement will be executed.

16 hours ago, Cos said:

Remember also how He told the repentant thief, "Today you shall be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus promised the repentant thief that he would be in this place, the place where the faithful dead go. Scripture also tells us that when Christ ascended to heaven He took with Him the compartment of sheol where the faithful dead stayed in wait (Eph 4:8-9). 

Jesus did say that to the thief, but those in death do not go to some afterlife, otherwise that would defeat the very purpose of what Jesus says about himself and or the very fact he is the firstborn out of death, let alone being the first of the fruits, I mean, the cross-references to Luke 23:43 actually tells you that. Taking the words of Isaiah, like him, those in death with rise and sing praise to God and his chosen one. As for Ephesians 4:8-9 these captives are the ones of whom cares for the Church, that is the Christ, the chapter even tells you a couple of verses onward, they were not literally taken up on the day Jesus ascended, otherwise it would defeat the purpose of Jesus' own words about him being the only one to ascended (John 3:13) prior to those chosen, which began in Pentecost.

No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

At Pentecost 33 C.E., the ascended Jesus, as God’s chosen one, the man who was a representative of God, began breaking down the house of Satan by carrying out those among the captive — the men who had long been in slavery the likes of sin and death and under Satan’s power and control. These captives became Christ’s slaves/servants without hesitation, doing the will of God with your whole soul. Jesus saved them from Satan’s control and, on Gods behalf, gave them to the Church as gifts in men and clearly this did not sit well with the Devil due to his control that has been tampered with and or broken, for no one can hold these captives and we have the Lord from God who saved such ones.

This is why we see this very fact seen in Ephesians 4:11

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,

This is also quoted in the Hebrew Old Testament, Psalms 68:18

You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.

h

16 hours ago, Cos said:

Also it is interesting to note that the Scriptures says that believers won’t die (John 6:50), but we all know that they still do. If Habakkuk 1:12 did read, “you do not die” it is clearly an idiom saying, you God are immortal and will exist forever. <><

Of course, God is immortal, as well as incorruptible, he cannot die, he is the life-giver, the God of both the living and the dead, and God himself can give life and does so by means of his Son, Jesus, in the future, he will grant life in a grander scale to those he remembers, to those who are in the book of life.

You fail to understand the passage from John 6:50. You really have to understand, and but into context what John 6:48-51 is showing, in not doing so, you make a response not even the most well educated Trinitarian would make, therefore, shows you are seeing this verse with a man's understanding.

When Jesus spoke about living forever and not dying, he was not referring that those who were listening to what he had to say would never experience the first death being the human death of which we experience from the age of Adam and Eve's disobedience to now. The  point Jesus was making was that having faith in him could lead to living forever, eternal life. This is why in this instance, Jesus called himself the bread of life. He continues to say something along the lines of that this bread of which he speaks, is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die, he continues to make it known that He, Jesus, is the living bread that came down from heaven, if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever -  eternal life.

Any man would think that this concludes that Jesus was saying that they could avoid the experience of death, which is understandable, but again, one has to read and apply context to see what the passages really is saying, examining the evidence, if you will. The context itself pretty much is what I had already said. Jesus had just said this is the will of him that sent me, we know God sent Jesus, furthermore, that I should lose nothing out of all that he has given me but that I should resurrect it at the last day, etc. Those, every man that beholds the God's Son and exercises faith in him should have eternal life, and He will resurrect him at the last day. No man can come to Him unless the Father, who sent him, draws him; and He will resurrect him in the last day, see John 6:39-44. Jesus said later on that he that feeds on his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and he shall resurrect him at the last day, see John 6:54. Hence, Jesus’ promise of living forever can be understood, should you accept it, Jesus would not be saying to the listeners that they would never experience death, that would be silly because even today man can and will eventually die, they fear death, but rather, Jesus was conveying the message to show us that there is indeed a way we have this bread, this wine, in turn, gain eternal life.

As for God, he can't die, you make want to check out 1 Timothy 1:17 (also Romans 1:23) also, as with all cross-references that speak of God's nature of incorruptibility/immortality. To say and or believe God can die, then you really do not believe THWH is God thus giving people the reason to think of the All-Powerful having flaws and or weak, like kryptonite to superman, you throw the green rock at him and he is not so powerful after that not to mention falling out of the sky like rain drop, but this is God we are talking about, the El Shaddai, he is All-Powerful and Great, nothing can weaken him nor can he weaken himself, for as Jesus puts it, God is good, and that God is greater than him, the very reason why you have many, even Satan grinding their teeth right now because they know what God is capable of doing, especially to them, erasing them from reality, if you will.

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible is full of prophets ... and many of them spoke His Word.

(bear in mind, for some reason my response tends to be all bold randomly half way through)

Indeed, the scriptures does inform us of many prophets of whom God had communicated with in many ways and occasions (Hebrews 1:1), however in the Torah (Hebrew Old Testament), God speaks of the one who is coming, this specific Prophet who has not been known to the people yet, the very one who He, God, will put his words in this Prophet’s mouth. This same prophet is sent by God, and speaks of what is to come regarding the final day, for God has spoken to us in a Son (Hebrews 1:2)

Now in the Torah we will go to Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 18:15-19, with the focus being more on verse 18.

A New Prophet like Moses

• (15) “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— (16) just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ (17) And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. (18) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. (19) And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

Cross-references: Exodus 34:28, Numbers 12:3, Matthew 4:1, 2, 11:29, John 5:46

Now, there is no question, that Moses was indeed the meekest of men on the face of the earth during his time, but there would be one who is like him, a new prophet who is said to be like Moses himself, the very prophet who will also act as an in-between for God and men, for these men will speak to those of mankind.

The Word that God had put in this prophet’s mouth is in regards of the promise of what the Kingdom will bring that of Salvation and revealing God’s Purpose and Will and what that implies.

This prophet is indeed the one sent by God, the flesh/man, born of a woman into the Law, named Jesus, for we know of this when Mary had been visited by Gabriel, an Angel of God, Joseph, Son of David, was also informed of this news via dream for he was suspect about Mary’s pregnancy as well as what he knows about what the Law of the Land is all about (Matthew 1:20-23, 25, Luke 1:31-33, 35, 2:21). Moreover, Christ Jesus, was indeed the one Prophet that even Moses had spoken of.

We also have to take into account of what Jesus says on John 5:45-47,  which can be pointed back to Deuteronomy in the Torah:

Witnesses to Jesus

• (45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (46) For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. (47) But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

So it is no surprise that we see the example in John chapter 4, for we know that the Samaritans, who follow the Torah with hardcore intent, awaited the Prophet, for we know this by the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman, and eventually the reaction of the Samaritan people themselves.

• John 6:14 - When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

The Word is described as god, God. Michael never has been described as god or God. Prophetic Word or word in Isaiah described one person, child that is born as;   Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. So who is Jesus? Who is Michael the archangel? Who was in the beginning? God Jesus or God Word or not God Michael? Was Michael first and last? 

Michael was "just" one of the chief princes, according to Daniel book. Never titled as one of "gods", but one of chief princes. So who are, what are the names of other chiefs?? When, where and why Michael get new position, new title as Archangel?

What you fail to see is that God the Father refer to all his children as gods, godlike ones, those in Heaven as well as those on Earth – gods/godlike ones (elohims and or deities ), in addition to what the passages says about sons of The Most High.

We know this for what we see in Psalms 82:1-6

Rescue the Weak and Needy

A Psalm of Asaph.

• (1) God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: (2) “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah (3) Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. (4) Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (5) They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. (6) I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;

Here we find out that:

• [A] These godlike ones are in the midst of God the Father and
• God himself refers to such ones as gods/godlike ones.

Verse 1 literally reads out God (El) takes His stands in the assembly of the gods (Elohim); He judges among the gods (Elohim).

Since all bene elohims are of Elohim, El Shaddai, and come into existence because of elohim, these sons of God are elohims, deities, gods, etc (whatever floats your boat)

Sons of God, the gods/godlike ones is a reference to us, those of us of mankind, and judges, and to focused on the scriptures itself, it is also a reference to human judges of Israel.

Therefore, even the Archangel, being of God, is indeed a god, godlike one, and while on earth, this applies also, for it is read that the Christ himself even quoted what was written about the Law

• John 10:34, 35 – (34) Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (35) If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

The Law of that Jesus spoke of, the one that is written is of the Hebrew Old Testament, the verse described above, Psalms 82:6, in addition, Jesus is known to speak of the entire Hebrew Scriptures, not just The Law of Moses alone, the same can be said of John 12:34 and 15:25 in regards to Jesus speaking of what is written.

We also see what Apostle Paul had said in 1 Corinthians 8:5

• For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—

At Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, the judges were called gods (elohim). However, some translations obscure this fact by translating elohim as judges while others have translated the word as God which violates the context of the passage itself. The main purpose here in this passage is that these judges represented God. So if an Israelite came before this human judge, Elohim, they were then appearing before God Himself not because these judges were God Himself but because these human authorities were God's representatives and or a Spokesman and as His representatives they were exercising His authority in His name. As such, these human judges were Elohim, that is, gods. We can also see Exodus 4:16, Moses was told that he was to serve as God to both Aaroan and to Pharaoh.

So it is no surprise that even the Jews know of such a Law that exists even to this day.

Now as for Isaiah 9:6

• For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

small quote: Hebrews often name their babies in praise to some attribute of God at work in their life.

We see in the scriptures, as well as evidence via the practices and customs of the Jews, that such names are given to people, as well as places, and these names don't mean that these people are places are therefore God. It also show us that the one who is the Christ, The Messiah, would bear this name because he represents the Eternal Father and is the Mighty God's wonderful counsel since it was God who set things in motion, i.e. The one to raised up the Messiah to carry out His purpose and will. In short, YHWH of Hosts makes it all happen.

Very soon I will make a Bible Discussion on this verse when I get through some verses in John, Acts and Corinthians.

As for Princes (Nobles, Kings, Lords, Leaders) If you read onward in the book of Daniel, Daniel was being specific of who the Great Prince actually is, we cannot choose one point and forget the other when trying to piece together context of a passage and or belief.

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you talking about JHVH VOICE (spoken words without mediator)? Guess yes, because talking about someone with limitless power. So what was the role of the Word (prehuman Light, Jesus, Michael, or who ever) if not creating with his partner, father, God? "And God said; Let be the light... let be the earth...." Was His voice created the light, earth...and all other or was his Word (Son) working job to be done? Text said all was created to him, of him, trough him". 

For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

You do not get the point, God’s Spoken Word in the very beginning, Moses did not exist, nor did any spark of life on the nothingness of the earth’s earliest state for the earth was formless and void – literally. Darkness consumed the formless earth as well as its deep watery seas. After reading the verse 2 verses of Genesis, look at what the next verse, 3, and onward, “And God said” etc. etc. etc. and the cause of what he had said and the result, for instance, the Bible in the beginning said the earth was literally shrouded in Darkness, God simply spoke about light and there you have it or perhaps the living creatures that roam the earth, dwell in the depths of the sea and fly in the heavens.

It is very obvious and known by many that the Word by which God created all things in Genesis was His spoken Word. The Scriptures tell us that the Genesis creation was accomplished by means of God's SPOKEN Word, so I do not see how you missed that in John’s Introduction of the gospel.

As for the man named Jesus, in his pre-existence, he was with his Father during the Genesis Act of Creation, for God had made things through him, which is very clear in the Bible, in chapter 1 of Genesis, verse 26, God was clearly with His Son when they made man, molded in both likeness and image, the very reasons why the cross-references are clear (Prov 8:30, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).

The same sense as a Father works through His Son to teach him how to craft and or teach, make him a better man, it is the same sense with God and his only-begotten Son, the very reason the Bible says God takes delight in His Son and that Jesus himself was with his Father, marveling at his works and what God the Father had done.

That being said, God's Spoken Word is in full display in regards to creation as seen in the very first chapter of the Bible (The Genesis Act of Creation).

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

and categories of translations too. NWT or other translations have errors. Well, errors came not only because of our misunderstanding while reading, but because of what we reading too. 

You do realize I am not talking about Bible translation, the category of Bible readers I am referring to is individuals who read but do not accept fully of what the Bible says and or lacks to apply context. Now, if we are going to talk about Biblical errors vs. the NWT, I guess we can start with the hypocrisy shown by mainstream Christendom who attack Jehovah’s Witness, in addition to literally 99% of the attack being directed to Non-Trinitarians as well as Muslims to read the Bible, sure we can get into that for its been a decade since I have researched and spoke of Bible translations, inspired and uninspired verses, forgeries, etc. as well as why real Christians and even Muslims accept what the Oldest source says, which does not include Acts 8:37 and a dozen of other verses compared to the mainstream who accepts verses like Acts 8:37 and the other ones, the same people who attack others for removed Bible verses that have already been exposed to be 100% uninspired.

For this is a quote regarding the attack on JWs regarding Acts 7:59 and John 3:16:

It is disturbing that many Trinitarians have the nerve to whine and complain, and rant and rave, about the Jehovah's Witnesses doing this type of thing in their New World Translation and then turn right around and hypocritically approve of the very same type of thing in the KJV translation. If you have a KJV translation, the word "God" should be in italics (or brackets) and the KJV translators do inform their readers that words in italics (or brackets) were not present in the original Greek manuscripts. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses make their readers equally aware but for some reason Trinitarian apologists don't seem to think the Witnesses have been granted the same approval for such insertions as the KJV Trinitarians have been granted. It is blatantly misleading to add this word here, especially in view of the fact that many readers may overlook the italics convention, or do not even know about it, or blindly trust the translators to be giving them good information. The fact that this word is there in print, without any merit whatsoever, confuses and misleads the reader. It is an appalling example of adding to the Bible where it is obviously unwarranted and a device implemented only to promote a Trinitarian agenda. One truly wonders how anyone who approves of such things can suppose they are doing God a favor by distorting the very words he inspired and thereby misrepresent Him and so such things in His name.

End quote (mind you, this quote came from a man who is very neutral with JWs, moreover, he follows no denomination, just adheres to the Bible, but has common ground with those who actually has and or strives to be close to what is true)

But if you want to post a New World Translation errors that you claim, so be it, all I can say any claim you make is solely from a Trinitarian point of view and has been refuted by many, many, people over the years who know of the oldest source. You'll have to make another thread for that though.

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

If Word is prehuman Jesus, as you agree he is, and as WT agree he is.... then He was already above all creations and above all angels. Do not understand "prior to his resurrection, God has made Jesus Lord and exalted him above the angels"? If he (Jesus) is Michael the archangel, then he was above angels too, because he is ARCHangel. Who was exalted above angels? Jesus human or Michael the prince?? 

Verses state: "Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,…

Text said that in the NAME JESUS all must knee. NOT In the NAME MICHAEL. So if Michael came to earth to be Jesus and then Jesus go back in heaven to be Michael again, as WT teach, then where is LORD (Jesus) who was exalted by God and all angels and all chief princes must knee to him, even archangel Michael also must bow down or worship his KING . Because Jesus is KING (was born as King) and Michael is just Archangel. I think all is about Hierarchy.  

But as JTR wisely said,  "It's intellectually interesting ... in small doses ..."     :))))

Yes, if we are talking about the one who professes God’s Word, the flesh that is The Word, of course he had pre-existed, came to earth welcomed by some, hated by others and eventually killed, God took him out of the pangs of death on the 3^rd day, exalted him as soon as he ascended then yes.

Indeed, Jesus was up there, but he could not do as much in the presence of his Father, like rebuking Satan when it came to Moses corpse, to what Satan had in store, that I do not want to know, but God’s Son did not want to overstep authority of which he did not have. Only later on, after being risen, God’s Son, now sitting at His right hand, the one given authority and power after being raised out of death, etc.

God did make Jesus Lord, the Bible says so Acts 2:36, God was the one who also made Jesus the Christ, the same Christ that many awaited for, in ancient times and now present day.

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Such has taken place in the period of Jesus’ death via crucifixion and onward to His resurrection, and what took place when Jesus ascended to heaven after his final meet up with his followers? God exalted him, placed Jesus at his right hand for Jesus, being His only-begotten, became man and represented the Father, spoke of him and what God’s Kingdom will bring for mankind in the future as seen in his ministry from Matthew-John, died for our sins and enabling the New Covenant for he had tasted death for us, and was actually dead until God himself brought the Christ back to life, glorified, appearing like a Spirit, mainly to his followers who ran into him later on, as well as Thomas who didn’t believe Jesus had risen, etc.

Yes, Jesus is indeed above the angels, but you forget what the term Archangel means. Also we should not also forget that there is but one who is the Leader of God’s Army, the same Army that battled with Satan and his demons.

For example, God’s chosen one is not just a King, but a mighty warrior, a leader, noblemen who takes charge. The Bible says that Michael and his angels battled with the dragon as seen in Revelation 12:7 as well as describing the same battle, but saying Jesus, seen in Revelation 19:14-16. Would be kind of silly to say and or think Satan had been battled twice, kicked out of Heaven twice when the Bible makes it clear the battle was only one time and the leader of the demons and the leader of God’s Army were the ones in conflict.

There is one army leader that God position to lead the angels into combat, eventually  H’Armageddon, the same one who cast out Satan from Heaven in a confrontation we only read about, but in reality must have been long and quite brutal.

No, Jesus was no longer human when he ascended into Heaven, and last I check flesh cannot enter the Spirit Realm that is Heaven that is absurd; you do not hear much about Michael until the action is revealed in Revelations.

As for the next response, that is fairly easy, because the one who has been anointed by God, the one who is the firstborn out of the dead and the first of the fruits – is the Messianic King, God’s chosen one.

Yes, it says Jesus, but you forget that God sent Gabriel to inform Mary to name the child Jesus, clearly in his pre-existence his name was not Jesus at all until he was in the womb of Mary. That passage also didn’t say Immanuel, and yet we can freely speak of this name in the same sense that we speak of Jesus, but not of Jesus’ pre-existing name, Michael.

 Technically it is seen this way, the Son of God, the only-begotten, was with His Father and clearly didn’t want to overstep his authority in the presence of his Father mainly with the whole Moses’ corpse situation. When sent to earth he was given the name Jesus (Yehoshua/Yeshua) as well as Immanuel (Emmanuel), as well as being called the Horn of Salvation. Jesus eventually became the Christ/Messiah, who was the Prophet of whom was spoken of the Old Testament, similarly, Jesus himself also made this known when he read the Scroll of Isaiah. Eventually he was accused and had been killed via crucifixion, risen on the 3^rd day by God the Father, eventually ascending into heaven assuming his role by his Father, with his position and has been made Lord, exalted, given the name above every other name, as well as authority and power. With that, God will judge through his Son and resurrect people by a great multitude, as for the wicked, God’s chosen one will come to exact judgment with God’s Army, and he will be carrying a Sword, coming in the name of his Father. The list goes on but I this is just brief.

The only reason people cannot see Jesus is Michael is for one thing, Angel. But the hypocrisy is they say Jesus is a messenger who represents God (Shaliah Principle/Angelic Agency) aka Malak. In addition, they see clearly in scripture even Paul refers to Jesus as an Angel.

But many hold this view of Michael/Jesus, however, some seem to be closer to what the connection is vs those who do not, the most absurd of some belief is saying Michael is God, which is false.

If you think of it as such, what you say about him being born as a King, that is understandable, for it further proves the point of Jesus’ position when he pre-existed, as a human, when risen, returned to haven and onward.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Apparently Trinitarians within mainstream Christendom apply the slogan of Burger King when it comes to their confusing Christology, "Have it Your Way" and it would seem they are having it their way when it comes to scripture.

The thing is here, what the Bible says, what the early Church had taught and practice, which includes the abilities of which Jesus entrusted the Church, being used by Church leaders who adhere to it, the application of scripture in regards to lifestyle, morals, cleanliness, etc. - We should take such in seriousness for such is scriptural.

We should not be adding on something outlandish, but rather take in what is already there, even though we are learning over time, an example would be one reading the Bible to eventually find out God has a Son who is only-begotten when before the reader didn't know about the only-begotten Son of God. But we have the silliness of some today that say God is Jesus or that God approves of guns, these false practices and heresies the mainstream adheres to, as well as a list of other things, in this regard, The Holy Spirit, hence the topic.