The Father did not have sex to have His Son like humans do. The Father formed the Son from His bosom. Imagine a big pail of water (the Father) now take a cup of water out of the pail and now you have the Son. The Son is the image of the Father. The Father created all things through the image Son. The Father gave life of His own to the Son and a will to choose. The Father & the Son are the same but the Son is a lessor manifestation of the Father. Jesus said if you see me you see the Father.
@wilby1414 The God of the old testament is not the Father--but the Son, the great I am. In Isaiah 43:10 ...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me..
Only the Son knows the mind of the Father because they have the same mind, they think alike. The Son does the will of the Father because He is of the Father, made of the same energy / substance or whatever that pure life is that they possess. But one thing is sure -- it is pure LIFE. To receive LIFE receive Christ in YOU!
4. 3:34 lie, they believe the spirit is the energy within you like electricity and therefore have a spirit!!!
5. 4:00-8:00 JW's do not deny Jesus is called God they deny he's equal with the father therefore not the only true God as Jesus himself says in John 17:3, he said I am many times before he was the messiah and he had authority from his father to make such claims
1. 1:32 agreed but John 1:1 fuss is stupid because the father himself is called a god in scripture Therefore his argument crumbles because the israelites already did this with Jeremiah 23:23 and many more.
2. 2:39 Jehovah's authority of course by following christ your ultimately obeying the father
3. 2:43 That's not how linguistic scholars(the people who write the dictionary) define cult by don't take my word for it look it up yourself!!!!!
@FAITHandLOGIC Haha that's actually pretty funny. The quote is apparently somewhat disputed, but never let it be said I defend John Calvin...what a scumbag. It seems that I more and more disagree with this James White fellow, but I still think he makes some good points here.
@FAITHandLOGIC Michael & Jesus are not the same. Just because Michael says 'the Lord rebuke you' (Jude 9) doesn't mean that he is the same 'Angel of the LORD' in Zechariah 3:2 that says the same thing. For one, Jude 9 says that Michael 'did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment.' Jesus has all authority given to Him on Heaven & Earth (Matthew 28:18). Also Jesus comes with the VOICE on the archangel but it doesn't say that Jesus IS the archangel (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
@FAITHandLOGIC, also keep in mind, Jesus & Satan are both referred to as lions, morning stars, & light-bearers, but that doesn't mean that Jesus is Satan. Michael is a created being, while Jesus is not. Michael is the commander of ISRAEL, not the Church. Michael in Jude 9 is clearly not Jesus, & the Angel of the LORD is clearly God/Jesus - not Michael. This Web site clearly demonstrates why Biblically, they are not the same:
got questions, then type: Jesus Michael Archangel
@FAITHandLOGIC I have. In Daniel 12:1-2 Michael is the great prince who stands guard over ISRAEL ("the sons of your people") during the Tribulation period. In Revelation 20:1, 'an angel' comes down from Heaven to bind Satan AFTER Jesus returns with His Church after the Tribulation (Revelation 19:11-16). It is unclear if 'an angel' refers to Michael or not, but it's NOT Jesus. Jesus does resurrect the OT saints, but Daniel doesn't say that Michael resurrects them.('rescue')(cont)
@FAITHandLOGIC (cont) BTW, since I read the verses you provided, did you read the verses & Web site that I provided? Also, check out this video on YouTube which explains where the idea of Michael being the same as Jesus originally came from:
watch?v=NX5YGRfY98Q
As Christians we have to be careful in drawing parallels where there are none. Otherwise, we are breaking God's 1st & most important commandment by worshiping an angel as if he were God, which Jesus warned us about.
@BornAgainRN It is obvious that Michael is the preincarnate Jesus as that is His identity prior to becoming man. Jesus is also returning with a new name (Rev 2, 20) so why isn't it logical to believe that He had a different name prior to becoming man.
It is so obvious that Spurgeon, Gill, Wesley, Edwards, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Scott, Hawels, Adam Clarke and the Geneva Bible, Abingdon Bible and Lange's commentaries all arrive at the same conclusion.
@FAITHandLOGIC no it is not 'obvious' but it is a conclusion that many people draw but that doesn't make it true. The Angel of the LORD is no doubt Jesus, but implying that the Angel of the LORD = Jesus is an assumption. The 'new name' in Revelation 2:17 is GIVEN to the saved ('those who RECEIVE it'). Jesus returns with the name 'Faithful & True' (Revelation 19:11). If Jesus is Michael then why does He 'not dare' bring an accusation against Satan if Jesus was given all authority?
@FAITHandLOGIC in regards to Spurgeon, Calvin, etc. just because some of their doctrines (such as Calvinism) are Biblically-based, we shouldn't assume that ALL of what they preached is. We still need to compare what they preached against SCRIPTURE. For example, Calvin was amillennial, yet the Bible teaches a literal 'Millennial Kingdom' after the return of Chris. If you believe Michael is Jesus, then you are worshiping an angel. Michael is THE archangel, but he is just an angel.
@BornAgainRN Look at what you just said: "Michael is THE archangel, but he is just an angel". Your sentence completely contradicts itself. The archangel is obvously not "just" an angel. It's the CHIEF of the angels - Jesus is the LORD of Hosts ... SAME THING!
This traditional understanding of winged angels is so childish. It's Roman Catholic nonsense.
Jesus is "Angel of the LORD" in the OT. Does that make Him "just" an angel also? I'm sorry but that's a double standard on your part.
@FAITHandLOGIC, Daniel states Michael is the 'chief prince' - the chief prince amongst the angels, which why he is the archangel. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. To draw a parallel between the 2 is stretching Scripture. Chief & Lord is NOT the same thing.The OT describes Jesus as 'THE Angel of the LORD' while other angels. like Gabriel are called 'AN angel.' Michael is THE archangel meaning he is head of the angels but THE archangel & THE Angel of the LORD is an unbiblical parallel
@FAITHandLOGIC the idea of angels having angels is not childish or Roman Catholic in origin. Isaiah describes the Seraphim as having 6 wings. Ezekiel describes the Cherabim as having 4 wings. The ark of the covenant has two Cherabim which had wings. The 'four living creatures' in Revelation which are angels have 6 wings. The belief that Jesus is Michael is based on Ellen G. White & Charles Taze Russeell who were both false prophets & influenced by the false prophet William Miller
@BornAgainRN This is exaclty why I'm done wasting my time. Things you say are just factually wrong.
First, how can the idea of Jesus being Michael begin with Rusell and Miller when I can give you proof of Calvin, Wesley and others making this claim prior to either of them being born?
Second, Cherbim and Sepharim are NOT mentioned as angels.
Third, there is no pretrib Rapture. Do some research on futurism and dispensationalism. It's a lie invented by the Jesuits.
@FAITHandLOGIC sorry you consider this 'wasting your time.' I considered it a chance to share each others views, despite our disagreements. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am 'factually wrong.' Could it mean that you are misinterpreting Scripture?
Even if Calvin/Wesley believed Michael=Jesus we still have to compare their views TO SCRIPTURE, which doesn't support their views. Russell/Miller were both influenced by Miller, & both came to same conclusion(cont).
@BornAgainRN My friend. Opinion is one thing, but when you make absolute statements like the "Jesus/Michael thing started with Miller and Russll" when many Baptists and Reformers taugh the same thing up to 200 years prior to both of them, that is a factual error.
Today's Christianity is based more on tradition than actual Scripture. We see this in doctrines and in practices. Most come from the Catholic Church and paganism but it's still practiced in Evangelical denominations.
@FAITHandLOGIC FYI, I am not Catholic, nor is my faith based on 'church tradition' or my personal interpretation, but rather on a literal view of Scripture, based on the original languages. The belief that Jesus=Michael, whether it's based on Miller/White/Russell/the Reformers, etc. is based on HUMAN interpretation of Scripture, rather than on what Scripture actually reveals.
@FAITHandLOGIC Cherub (kĕruwb - an angelic being). Seraphim (saraph - majestic beings with 6 wings). Angel (mal'ak - angel, messenger, representative / aggelos - an angel, messenger from God). If you cross-reference these you find out that they are NOT people. Revelation 4 describe them as 'four living creatures' in Heaven with the same characteristics as Ezekiel 1, which are identified as cherub in Ezekiel 10 & Seraphim in Isaiah 6. Jesus said he would come with his angels cont)
@BornAgainRN I don't care what the concordance says. Show me in the Bible where is says Cherubs and Seraphim are "Angels". Then show me where it says "angels" have wings. The Bible only says cherubs and seraphim have wings, not angels. Angel means messenger. Cherubs and Seraphim are not "messengers".
@FAITHandLOGIC so now you are not believing in concordances, which explain what Biblical words actually mean in the original languages? Sounds your faith is based on your understanding rather than God's.
Isaiah 14:12-15 describes the fall of Lucifer. Ezekiel describes him as 'the anointed CHERUB' (Ezekiel 28:12-15). Cherub are described as having 4 WINGS (Ezekiel 1:5-6). Revelation 9:11 describe the ANGEL of the abyss as Apollyon - Greek for Destroyer, a name for Satan.
@FAITHandLOGIC (cont) I don't have space to go into the 'pretrib rapture/dispensationalism' discussion, however, I have researched this in depth, & premillennialism predates Darby & MacDonald by well over 1,500 yrs. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) was premillennial, but later changed his view to amillennial. Pseudo-Ephreim around the same time describes a pre-trib rapture. Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Papias, Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Lactantius, Clement of Rome (cont)
@BornAgainRN I have read many of those you mentioned and of course they were futurists because at that time, 90% of Revelation was yet to be fulfilled. All of those men you mentioned above stated clearly that the man of sin would stem from Rome after it was split into 10 Kingdoms. It is clearly the papacy and the Roman Church (see Rev 17).
Futhermore, the pretrib rapture is foreign to these men. Darby is the "father of Dispensationalism" in the modern sense. Google "Francisco Ribera".
@FAITHandLOGIC 90% of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled. The seals are yet to be opened, & the trumpet & bowl judgments haven't happened yet. The antichrist is yet to be revealed. The 100 million army wasn't possible in John's day due to the population. Christ hasn't returned from heaven on a white horse.
The 10 Kingdoms in Revelation 17:9 is NOT the papacy, just because Rome sat on 7 hills. They represent 7 heads of 10 WORLD kingdoms who 'make war with the Lamb' (v.7-14).
@FAITHandLOGIC (cont) all these were either premillennial and/or pre-trib. Other views (amillennial, post-trib, mid-trib, prewrath, etc) came centuries later. But even the views of early church fathers need to be compared to SCRIPTURE, which describe the Church 'keeping from' (Gr: 'out of') the 'HOUR of trial' (the Tribulation) which shall come upon the whole world. De Lacunza was a Jesuit who described the Rapture but Jesuits are Catholics who are amillennial. Pretrib IS Biblical
No man has seen GOD at any time. If we love one another, GOD will dwell in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 1John.4:12,13
And He(LORD GOD) said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exodus.33:20
Jesus said, and the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape. John.5:37
No man has seen GOD at any time. If we love one another, GOD will dwell in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 1John.4:12,13
And He(LORD GOD) said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exodus.33:20
Jesus said, and the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape. John.5:37
@FAITHandLOGIC, sorry, made another typo, instead of 'the idea of angels having angels is not childish or Roman Catholic in origin,' I meant to say 'the idea of angels having WINGS (not 'angels') is not childish or Roman Catholic in origin.' However, I would hope that from reading the rest of the text that you would have figured out what I meant.
@BornAgainRN correction - first post, meant to say 'Russell/White were both influenced by Miller' - not, 'Russell/Miller were both influenced by Miller.' But, I think you figured that out. Sometimes I think faster than I type. :)
I'm afraid that your views of angelology, eschatology, & bibliology in general are based on some unreliable sources.
BTW if Michael is Jesus then why does Michael 'dare not bring an accusation to Satan,' but Jesus can since He is given all authority?
@FAITHandLOGIC I would caution basing your faith on Web sites - most of the time, they have poor Biblical hermeneutics & usually interpret Scripture on THEIR own understanding.
In Genesis 32:24-32, Jacob wrestles with 'a man' who Jacob later states he has 'seen God face to face.' Since no one can see God & live, this is clearly a Christophany. When the angel of the LORD (all caps) is mentioned, this is a Theophany. Scripture does not support AOTL=the archangel-THIS is tradition.
@FAITHandLOGIC - correction - in the first post, I meant to write 'The Angel of the LORD is no doubt Jesus, but implying that the Angel of the LORD = MICHAEL (not Jesus) is an assumption." Sorry for the misunderstanding. Everything else is correct.
@BornAgainRN My point is that you all want to give Calvin and the others a pass but you won't do the same to others.
Jesus is the "Angel of the LORD" as you stated. Daniel calls this angel "Michael" or "Who is like God (?)". Why is this so hard for people to get? It's not insinuating that Jesus is a created being, it's simply saying that the archangel or "highest messenger" is another identity of Christ - as is Emmanuel, the Word of God, the Lamb of God, etc.
@FAITHandLOGIC that's because Calvinism can actually be backed up by Scripture. Michael being Jesus cannot. "Who is like God?" is a question, which is what Michael means. It doesn't mean that Michael IS God. It is to convey that no one is like God. You are drawing parallels between Jesus & Michael by taking Scripture out of context.
@BornAgainRN Also, the Bible clearly states that the dead will be awoken with the "voice of the Son of God" at Christ's return in John 5. 2 Thes 4:16 states that Christ is returning with the "archangel's voice" and the dead will be raised. Now, don't give me that nonsense that they are different voices. It is clearly the same. Stop letting your man-made traditions and the Book of Enoch do the thinking for you.
Angel means messenger. It's not a creature with wings. Jesus is THE messenger.
@FAITHandLOGIC angels don't always mean angelic beings like Michael. In Revelation 2 angels, or messengers, are human leaders of the 7 earthly churches. John 5:25 is about the 2nd Coming when He gathers His elect from across the world & unites them with His raptured Church. 1 Thessalonians is about the rapture. 2 different events. If anyone is adhering to man-made traditions, it's you, who base your beliefs on 2 false religions - JW's & SDA, with histories of false prophecies.
Phillipians 2 talks about morphe= visible appearance station and position it doesn't talk about ousia or same substance or nature. Who in form of God/Elohim (morphe theou) existing not seizure/snatching considered he to be equal to God/Elohim.
James White is an NIV NASB proponent because he believes the KJV robs the Deity of Christ in certain passages. His presentation in defense of Historical Orthodox Christianity is abysmal and full of holes teeming with eisegetical biases if he can't present his own theological position without twisting words and facts...
Phillipians 2 doesn't speak about nature but it does speak about Jesus' morphe= resemblance and equality. Kenneth S. Wuest, states we learn that in Koine Greek the word morphe had come to refer to “a station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this context [Philippians 2]” (The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84). If you use the NIV then we get James White's interpretation of Morphe as "nature"
KJV Romans 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ(1) [came], who is over all, God(2) blessed for ever. Amen.Two!!! KJV Colossians 1 Prototokos= first born of every creature Phillipians 2 Morphe= The overwhelming majority of uses of [morphe] in all of Greek literature denoted the idea of the form or the shape of someone or something, but even more critical, the uses expressed the fact that [morphe] denoted an EXTERNAL form or shape observable by sight.
KJV Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God (1) and our Saviour Jesus Christ(2) Two! KJV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God(1) and our Saviour Jesus Christ(2) Two!! KJV destroys Granville Sharpe's rule in these two proof texts that James White refers to!
John 14:28 The Father is greater than I. In John 17:11 he prays to the Father... Jesus was given the name. In John 18:5-6 Jesus says "Ego Eimi " so when he said Ego Eimi they drew back and fell to the ground. Jesus prays to the Father but he uses the Father's name because he is the Father? In John 4:26 he says Ego Eimi as the Messiah not that he's God. John 6:20 he says Ego Eimi as Jesus Son of God, Lord and God, Rabbi, Son of God equal to God, The Father is Greater than I who is Jesus?
John 1:1 in the Koine Greek reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God and God was the Word". The Logos is Monogenes theos in John 1:18 the only begotten God, Oh lest we forget Thomas in John 20:28 who called Jesus "my Lord and my God". The Jews were to stone Jesus for calling himself the Son of God equal to God. Jesus in John 8:58 said "Ego Eimi" which is LXX's name for the Father in Exodus 3:14. Jesus called the father the only true God John 17:3. Who is Jesus?
The Divinity of Christ was proclaimed as Dogma in the First Council of Nicea presided by both Emperor Constantine and Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria and in the First Council of Constantinople convoked by Emperor Theodosius I and presided by Gregory Nazianzus the premier Platonic-Christian trinitarian theologian who helped create the definitive creedal formulae for the doctrine of the trinity. All Hail Caesar oops I mean Jesus!!!
Incarnation Theology was expounded by Athanasius of Alexandria a hotbed of Gnosticism, Jesus the "God Man or Hypostatic Union" was expounded and codified first in the Council of Ephesus presided by Cyril of Alexandria with the blessing of the Emperor Theodosius and in the the Council of Chalcedon presided by a board of government officials and senators, led by the patrician Anatolius with the blessings of Emperor Marcian. Long Live the Bible!
ect.. interfaith, using idols and images in " christian " religions. Pagan teachings creeping into Christianity... homosexuality in the clergy, having a " Clergy " class, using religious titles, Apostolic succession..All these things are unscriptural, YHWH, YAHWEH, YEWIH, GOD, and no true follower of Christ accept these as proper. Job was not a " christian ' or even Jewish, he was an oriental, he probably had no idea what his creators name was. He just practiced righteousness.
What about John 1:14? Also, any JW that I ever spoke with believed that Jesus was really " in the flesh", as a man. Otherwise he could not be an equal ransom for Adams sins. JW'S just dont believe that Jesus is the ALMIGHTY. You should get your hands on CD libraries and get it from the source, even if you do not agree. You would not like others to publish inaccuracies about your faith. Also, there are bigger issues to discuss, like " being no part of the world" like Jesus, i.e.WAR,POLITICS,ect
Just because he says things that are not to your liking does not make him a fool.
Some good points were made. But you can't stop him from commenting everywhere, so have you really achieved anything by blocking him - or just silencing another free voice?
@younot2funny Sigh...if he just wants to throw meaningless insults and add nothing to serious discussion, I have every right to block him from filling the comments on this video that I posted with rubbish like that if I so choose. I am not in any way "running" from his "superior arguments and logic" I assure you. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Prov 26:4 "Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words" P23:9
@mayuhavepeace lol I knew you'd say that. The only reason people say that is because John 5:7 is not in most translations of old texts that we have now. However, 1 John itself is mostly absent except for a smattering of snippets. Going by that limited logic, the entire book of 1 John should be considered spurious, but nobody says it should be excluded, they just target that one verse. It is a flawed argument. Many did not survive, but 1 J 5:7 was in almost all ancient manuscripts.
@mayuhavepeace The first (and most) mentions of the name Michael in the Bible are applied to various humans, so that's not a fantastic argument for Michael being Jesus. Also, Michael is described as a prince, never a king. Prince is is a designation attributed to various angelic beings in the Bible. The main issue is what Jesus is. The fact is that He is the "mighty God" and the "everlasting Father," and not a created being (Is. 9:6).
There are TWELVE people in the Bible with the name Jesus or Jeshua - same name. Jesus was never called Jesus to his own face, he spoke Hebrew. He would have use the name Yeshua or Jeshua. The name Jesus is the Greek variation. There are still OTHERS with the larger variations of the name like Jehoshua. We are now over FIFTEEN.
Similarly, there are ELEVEN persons called Michael.
Where is the problem with Michael also called Jesus because other humans?
@mayuhavepeace "Irrelevant!" Yes...that was my point. Why is that the only thing in my entire comment you latched onto? No need to get so worked up about it; you yourself say its irrelevant, which again, was kind of my point. Simply put, the issue is whether or not Jesus is a created being, which he is not.
@mayuhavepeace There's more going on here than you assume. The Bible fully supports the Trinity and that Jesus is God, on many occasions. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)" It's not always easy to understand how Jesus can be the Son and the Father, but the fact is that God is three yet one. Jesus is the "Mighty God" and the "Everlasting Father."
For he(Jesus) received from GOD the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 2Peter.1:17
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that He(Father, Jehovah) is your GOD. John.8:54
That with with one heart and mouth glorify the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans.15:6
Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD our GOD is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark.12:29,30
In Mark.12:29,30 Jesus is not speaking about himself!! He is speaking about the LORD his GOD!! His GOD is the Father(Yahweh).
The GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Father(Yahweh), not Jesus!!!
@epic103 Still not seeing the name Michael... and let me put this to you. You guys claim that Michael was the first creation but Michael wasn't always the lead arch angel. Before him satan was before he fell and the bible says that his name was lucifer (light bringer) and was the most beautiful creation ever created but his pride was his fall.
Do you know how easy it would be for satan to show up to someone and make himself look like an angel of light and pretend his name is Michael...
I was just explaining that in Mark.12:29,30 Jesus is not speaking about himself!! He is speaking about the LORD his GOD!! His GOD is the Father(Yahweh).
The GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Father(Yahweh), not Jesus!!!
Satan is a fallen Angel/Messenger so Jesus can never be equated as an exalted Angel/Messenger read Hebrews 1: 4-13 . Jesus must then be God Jehovah himself!
The Bible only reveals the Triune Godhead not his panoply of God and gods! That is why we must avoid reading Jewish Apocalyptic writings and other Second Temple Jewish pseudo-pigraphical writings with their strange notions of Michael the Archangel as the prototypical priest-king Melchizedek or Michael as a god commander of the Angelic hosts defender of Jehovah's name and sovereignty.
The belief of The God Jehovah and "a god" the Logos or pre-human Jesus smacks of polytheism. Similar in fact to the strange polytheistic Judaism found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were Angels are called "gods" and "sons of god" and to Second Temple Judaic polytheism in general where human Kings and God's human messengers are called Gods and sons of God in general.
Because the God of the Bible is really a Triune Who sharing One What. The Biblical God a What cannot be confused with the JW's concept of Jehovah as a personal God who has a unique personality. The OT clearly does not teach this! Because Jesus is God, eternally begotten not made sharing the same nature with the person of the Father read Joh 1:1 he cannot be identified as JW's do as being a singular distinct person, the Chief Messenger the First born of all of Jehovah's works.
cont. The Holy Spirit Parakletos is a "He" denoting masculine personality in the NT,The Holy Spirit is also an "IT" Agion Pneuma in the NT and is feminine Ruach haKodesh in the OT. The Third person of the One Being has One nature described in three distinct ways. The three persons (Who's) co equal and co eternal as Father Son and Holy Spirit sharing the One What (Divine Nature). Cannot be separated. So Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel.
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth. Psalm.83:18
Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Matt.11:25
The One who is above all is the Almighty Father!!!
There is only one Most High GOD, and that's the Father(Jehovah)
Jesus is the Son of the Most High, and the Most High is Jehovah(Father)
Jesus (The person of the Son) shares the same Divine nature as Jehovah (The person of the Father) Jesus is Jehovah Incarnate who became the God Man a person (A Who) with two beings(Two What's) one Divine one Human. Emmanuel "God with us". When Jesus' Human nature died on the Cross, the Divine nature which never died separated from the Human nature and returned to the Godhead. Since Jesus was no longer on Earth God the Father sent his Holy Spirit ( the person of the Holy Spirit)cont...
Ok, I don't dance around questions when involving scripture and insult others and say they twist scripture, no saying you are just saying that i'm direct. I'm not going to lie to you or hide from the fact that they're both called mighty God, but where in the bible is Jesus called almighty?
I understand both sides of this debate, both are not clearly taught in scripture so it must be inferred from many scriptures. My question for those who don't believe Jesus is Michael, can 2 spirit beings reign as King at the same time? And if so wouldn't that contradict the bibles prophecy of having only one king wear the crown of David at the end times?
I have been very busy and wasn't able to watch it when you sent it, then I forgot (again, very busy). I was considering watching it and approving, but now I am not sure. Your comment could be perceived as somewhat insulting. I have encountered many JWs that debate by way of insulting the other person, insinuating they are stupid and just generally being unpleasant instead of having a peaceable debate (can be said of both sides, I know). If you do not do that on a regular basis I would approve.
@joevox316 I am not interested in debating. I merely posted a a video response that I produced some months back on the topic of Jesus being Michael the archangel. It is not insulting. It is simply offering a reasoned approach to the issue at hand, without the drama. But it is your channel. Do what you want.
@ewatchmandotcom Alright. Thanks. I watched your video and it was well done. I don't agree of course but you do very good job with your videos. I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions. I have just been burned so many times on YouTube lately I was getting a little tired of it. Thanks for your response and the video. As you say "If you wish to know the truth it is attainable. " It is always nice to have both sides presented. Have a nice day.
@Gideon6640man If you didn't have "man" at the end of your name I would say you were having a tantrum. Who stole your candy?
You need to stop watching anti JW you tube videos. That was just a rant, repeating the usual crap people throw up when they realise that they can't win by using Gods word.
Not one single scriptural argument.
Plenty of mud slinging and character assassinations.
@NeXuzMotionzz Nevertheless Galatians is part of the bible canon of truth.
As is Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy where he said in 3:16,17 " All scripture is inspired of God, beneficial for teaching, reproving and setting things straight. for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent and completely equipped for every good work".
The bible makes a Christian "completely equipped" nothing else is needed.
Unfortunately the men in the above video are not "fully competent"
@steveparadise1 So why does the WT distort the Greek text so much? why have they adopted the Wactchtower? a symbol of the Tarot cards? Why all the occult connections even to this day? Do you believe in communicating with the dead for instruction? Russel did and he helped publish Angels and Women. Rutherford claimed that after Russel death he still was teaching "beyond the veil"...so do JW's teach that still? i mean having dead people still teach the living i.e necrmancy? tell us.
why not just take Jesus at His Word. He said He was the root of David and the Morning Star. Why so called christians feel the need to use mental speculation is evidence of their ignorance of scripture and lack of faith in their guru as well as a general lack of spiritual principals.The Vani or speech of the spiritual master is to be considered as good as the Vapu or physical presence.A little less self worship and more study of scripture and prayer under proper guidance is in your best interest.
@NeXuzMotionzz Galations 1:8,9 says "However even if an angel out of heaven declares to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news let him be accursed".
That's the quran out of it then, along with the book of Mormon
So "the quran sets the record straight" does it !
So you are saying that the God of Mohamed cannot protect the accuracy of the bible He inspired. lol
Of the 99 names you have for God. What one best describes this failing in almighty God ?
@steveparadise1 galatians was a letter written by paul where he gives guidance to that community and I highly doubt he ever thought his letters will even make it into the bible. anyways that is a sepaate debate.
God of muhammad, jesus, moses, abraham is the same god and he reveals his message suitable for that time period. He doesnt need to preserve the previous message if he is revealing a new one, plus he has given humans free will and if they change his word, its their fault.
@NeXuzMotionzz lol are you serious? or just being silly? the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is NOT Allah who had a "prophet" called Mohammad who was a murderer,child rapist,thief,deceiver,liar etc... you get the idea. Yeshua would have NOTHING to do with such an evil man excpet to have him repent or judge adn that's it. this nonsense you expouse is not only nutty it's dishonest.
@Gideon6640man "And to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. They will be recompensed for what they have been doing." Quran, 7:180
I think you dont have a strong defence so like many others, you just defile the last messenger of god. All the prophets came with a basic message which is that god is one. If you find that dishonest and silly, then you are entitled to your opinion.
@NeXuzMotionzz I defiled no messenger of G-d at all. Abraham->Moses->David->the Prophets-> Jesus...all point to him not your pedophile prophet..So why are you comfortable with a 54 y/o man having sex witha 9 y/o girl? what are you about guy? You like little girls? or little boys maybe? Un my opinion that is sick and disgusting......do you?
@Gideon6640man yes abusing little girls and exploiting them by using the status like all those catholic priests did is sick and disgusting . But which paedophile MARRIES the child he "abuses" with consent of her parents and gives her full rights and she becomes the leading scholars of islam in her time and the "paedophile" dies in her arms? lol
Now are u comfy with Judah fucking his daughter in law who gives birth to twins who become the forefathers of jesus, and god doesnt punish judah??? lol
@NeXuzMotionzz oops here is the reference too, GENESIS 38:15-I8. Since we r on the topic, r you comfortable with, two daughters fucking their father, namely lot (GENESIS 19:33-35)? Jacob's eldest son reuben fucks bilhah, whose the concubine of his father(GENESIS 35:22.)?? Son fucking all the wives of his daddy called King David in PUBLIC, basically a public orgy if you like, (2 SAMUEL 16:22)?? god doesnt mind
And Slavery is permitted by god = LEVITICUS 25:46
@Gideon6640man lol i have given you references, this is what the bible is saying and i have made it easy for you to understand by using modern english in case you dont undrstand the biblical language such as the word harlot being used for a whore. So my response is based on the filth in the bible which was added later on as the centuries went by. This is not directed only at catholics its directed at anyone who takes the bible as the word of god. Maybe u should identify your faith clearly. :)
@NeXuzMotionzz No you twisted scripture and made, once again vauge refrences....ther is NO verse that either says or suggests that Jesus is Michael...NONE. so shut up clown.
@Gideon6640man "shut up clown" really?? what happened to offering the other cheek? anyways, I am not going to attack you personally. But I dont think my references were vague since I clearly gave you the chapter + verse numbers in the second part of my reply.
I never said jesus is michael lol, your insult is the misdirected one not mine. He cant b michael because he never HIMSELF ever said that he is an arch-angel. Just like he never HIMSELF said that he is GOD.
@Gideon6640man lol read this very carefully. I AM NOT A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS, I DONT believe jesus is arch-angel michael. I hope this is clear to you. The references I gave were about the filth in the bible.
As far as insulting the son of the living god is concerned. The living god does NOT have a son or a daughter or a father or a mother or a grandparent or an uncle or an aunt. Stop insulting the living god! The first commandment is to believe in 1 god not 3 gods in 1.
@NeXuzMotionzz Oh please the G0d of the Bible does not have pedophile peophet raping 9 y/o girls is what he does not have. Eat a pork sandwich and beer relax. You have ZERO proof from the Bible that Michael is Jesus.........ZERO. Allah was chosen by your "prophet" form over 300 Arabic deites and the Kabbah was worshipped by the same people, then your pedophile pimp came along and endorsed musrder,rape and beating of women, stealing, anitSemitic drivel etc....your Allah is the flase Moon god.
@Gideon6640man the claim by robert morey that Allah is the south arabian moon god has been refuted with clear evidence, in fact, it is forbidden to worship any idols or make an image of god in islam, but we see statues in churches. A disciple of the prophet gave call to prayer by standing on the kabah, who stands on top of the thing they worship? lol
"eat pork & beer, relax"?? Ephesians 5:18 - "And be not drunk with WINE ..." Leviticus 11:7-8 = prohibits pork. Do you even read your bible? lol
@NeXuzMotionzz Robert who? whatever, the FACT about the Moon gods is not refutable so please example is your Crecent Moon symbol of the pagan god "Syn" .. Statues in what churches? oh you mean Roman Catholics, well they are just as wrong and funny they have, like your prophet a thing with liitle kids. Im not under Levitical Law since Yeshua came we are under the New Covenant, read your Bible. The Quran says Urine is good for you...is it? Your dome of the rock is an abomanation to my people.
@Gideon6640man Robert Morey, he is the person who came up with the "fact" of the so called moon god and he's been proven incorrect. Go do some OBJECTIVE research. The Crescent Moon symbol is NOT related to Islam and this symbol pre-dates Islam lol. Provide references like I did when you talk about the Quran please.
"not under levitical law"? OK I quoted you about not drinking wine from Ephesians, that's in New Testament lol. You forget that Yeshua was a jew and he was circumcised lol.
@Gideon6640man this is how bible punishes rapists. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT = "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
God of the bible wants the victim of rape to marry her attacker!! that is sick and disgusting. You need to read your own book before pointing fingers!!! lol
Anything that Demishing Jesus reeks of the Devils pee. Thats plain and simple truth. Never will I ever deminish Christ to an Angel. No angel deserves the glory that Jesus My Lord and my God does.
@cedella212 anything that degrades god to a human form reeks of devil's pee. Anything that converts god's creation (humans) into his other creations (angels) reeks of devil's peee. Anything which splits the ONE true god into 3 while still preeching god is a unity reeks of devil's pee. Anything that worships a human being reeks of devil's pee. Worship the god of adam, noah, abraham, moses, jesus, .... instead of worshipping god's prophet!! He will come again to correct u anyways so no worries :)
@NeXuzMotionzz Thank you, for your reply I shall take your words on board. I aint Worried amigo. My eyes have been opened but thank you :) Thank you very much. very insightful :)
@joevox316 It's a shame you are so blinded by the trinity that you would use verses that are no more inspired of God than the "book of Mormon" and the "Qua ran". For myself, I prefer the words of Jesus himself " I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" John 20:17.
@steveparadise1 I also prefer the words of Jesus and Jehovah himself: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30). Its a shame you're too blinded by Satanic lies about Jesus to believe the Heavenly Father. I do truly wish you the best friend.
@joevox316 so you are also quoting john 10:30 "I and my father are one." And obviously you take that verse literally but why dont you take the verse before that literally which says My father is greater than I? Why pick and choose the verses which are in favor of his divine nature and ignore the ones which show him to be a human or just refuse to take those verses literally and make up an interpretation which negates the literal meaning of the verse? Why the double standards?
I do take the verse before that literally. I also take other verses like that Jesus is "The Mighty God" and "The Everlasting Father" literally (Isaiah 9:6). And verses that say that "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (1 John 5:7)." The fact of the matter is, God is three yet one. I know this to be true beyond earthly intellectual doubt because God's Spirit lives in me and my spiritual blindness is lifted (more or less).
@joevox316 So you admit the father is a greater entity than the son? If that is the case, then can god really be three yet one? I am struggling to actually come to grips with the concept of trinity. First, the word trinity isnt mentioned in the bible, the closest verse which comes to confirming trinity is the one you just quoted in 1 john 5:7 and this verse has been widely accepted now to be a later insertion into the bible hence not found in the most ancient of manuscripts. Any explanation?
Well, I'm not sure I really can fully explain it. It's something that I just know to be true. I take it on faith, because I can never really fully understand it. God created the universe, light and even time itself. He is above these things. I figure if He says that He is three yet one He probably knows how it works better than me, so I take Him at His Word. I have heard it explained by comparing God to the Sun: The Father (Sun), Son (rays from Sun), Holy Ghost (warmth of the rays you feel).
As for the manuscripts...I read a report (can't find it--working on it) that presented evidence that the verse was indeed in the majority of ancient source manuscripts, but there were maybe less than a handful that did not have it, which were considered to be altered by blasphemers. Some people say that since the verse is not in the manuscripts we have now, we should ignore it. The entire book of 1 John is mostly missing from current manuscripts, but we certainly don't ignore the whole book.
@joevox316 yes well we can take anything on faith, the JW take it on faith to believe jesus is arch-angel michael and give unclear suggestions from the bible to prove this just like the trinitarians use for trinity. But obviously both claim their assumption is the TRUTH. I dont think there is any CLEAR statement in bible where god says that he is three yet one. " He probably knows how it works better than me". We are told to worship god, how can we do that if we dont know EXACTLY what he is?
@NeXuzMotionzz Trinity has been explained through the sun, its rays and warmth and with other analogies like matter existing in three states and so on.. but these dont answer my questions. If god is 3 in 1, then jesus dying on the cross means that god died? If god had died, is that not blasphemy?
As for the statement in 1 john, I gather you are trying to say that the blasphemers took the verse out & not the other way around. I would really like to see that report and & the evidence it contains.
@joevox316: Wonderful counsellor; no argument there, the mighty God; why is he NEVER referred to as almighty? Everlasting father; if you take this to mean everlasting heavenly father Jesus contradicted himself while he was on Earth because he said only one is your father in heaven and Jesus has BROTHERS, the aniontedones that go to heaven... Prince of Peace; why not king of peace, why is this mighty God who is never called almighty have a subjection title of prince?
@steveparadise1 uhhm The quran* sets the record straight actually while you people keep on debating what exactly jesus was. He wasnt/isnt god and trinity is basically splitting god in 3 which the quran clearly rejects. While the actual word trinity isnt found in the bible itslef. But we dont believe that god converted arch-angel michael into human form in mary's womb and then sent angel gabriel (another angel) to inform her about this lol. Jesus was a human & a great messenger of god. Peace!
@steveparadise1 Well there is ladies and gentlemen, the cult termites are feasting again as the expense of Yeshua rightful place..steveparadise...You have an abismal understanding of the culture,language ,herminutics,exegesis and not to mention common sense. This is typical of the distortion you have been brainwashed at the Hall and set up straw man arguements and then dismantle thinking you accomplished something when you have not. Name me ONE LEGIT WT SCHOLAR please. The NWT is diabolical.
@joevox316 I take it you believe 1 John 5:7 is one of these "concrete bible verses" that support the trinity. Every single serious, honest bible scholar, even trinitarian, will tell you this is a spurious verse that was added to scripture some time in the 13th century. Hence the reason no modern translation includes it.
1 john 5:7 is not inspired scripture. The very reason that this verse found its way into the bible in the first place is because there is no verse that supports a 3 person God
@steveparadise1 Doesn't work. Just look at your nearest mega church to find out why modern versions don't include it. Looking at old manuscripts reveals dozens of old writers and commentators speaking of its inclusion in the Greek manuscripts, except for ones that had been altered by blasphemers. We have more than enough evidence that this verse should be included. I pray that someday your can be like Thomas and even me and confess Jesus as your Lord and your God. I will be praying for you.
@steveparadise1 We don't need it...But your WT had to distort John 1:1,8:58, Col 1:15-17,2:9, Heb 1:3 etc....why? becasue they are liears and decievers.Freddy "Kruger" Franz was the only "scholar" and he had only two years of Greek and dropped out..Uner oath in a trail in Scotland, The Pursers Proof, this joker could not translate Genesis 2:4 of which ANY first year Hebrew student can do. George Gangas was ashort order cook .and these are your "scholars" lol Have any LEGIT SCHOLARS?.thought so
You say "Jesus was sent to be our savior". I agree. Who sent him? The Father. You say "Jesus is God but he is also the Son"
At Mathew 16 Jesus asks his disciples "Who do you say that I am". Peter answers "You are the Christ Son of the living God" Jesus then went on to say that on that admission and belief he would build his church.
Christendom has chosen to build its church on "God the Son" not "Son of God", or both.
I much prefer to go along with the words of Jesus and Peter than Christendom
@steveparadise1 Of course the Father sent Him. The Bible and even Jesus Himself still says that He is God. Peter answered well as you say. So did Thomas: "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God." John 20:28. Jesus is my Lord and God too, it's a shame He doesn't seem to be yours as well.
@steveparadise1 Of course the Father sent Him. The Bible and even Jesus Himself still says that He is God. Peter answered well as you say. So did Thomas: "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God." John 20:28. Jesus is my Lord and God too, it's a shame He doesn't seem to be yours as well.
@ThirdNUnion To take something out of context is to take it from it's surrounding material so as to distort it's meaning. I have not done that, and John 17 does not apply here. They both stand on their own quite nicely. Thomas said he would not believe Jesus rose from the dead unless he saw Him and felt Him. Not only does Thomas confess Him as his Lord and God, this is also proof that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form, and not as just a spirit.
@joevox316 The man in the video (above) Dr. White of A+O ministries says this on the trinity and the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Spirit:
"We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Spirit, or the Spirit is the father. It is common for people to misunderstand that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the trinity does not mean this."
I was surprised to by your statement, trinitarians I have spoken to believe the above. 3 separate persons.
@steveparadise1 I'm not James white. They are three persons, but as the BIBLE says "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE." 1 John 5:7
@joevox316....Jesus was the "first " to be resurrected to immortality and the "last" to be raised directly by God. Jesus was then given the keys to death and Hades and therefor resurrects others.
Jesus is the "King of kings". Nebuchadnezzar at Daniel 2:36 and At Ezekiel 26:7 is called the "Kings of kings". Does that mean Jesus must be Nebuchadnezzar?
Of course not.
So. Who is the "only true God" according to Jesus at John 17:3? You seem reluctant to answer this vital question
@steveparadise1 I'm not reluctant to answer anything. He is the same God that Thomas said what his God in John 20:28 (when he was speaking to Jesus). The One True God is the God of the Bible, the King of Kings, The Lord of hosts, The Father The Son, and The Holy Spirit. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
@joevox316 You are assuming that because two persons share a title,or description, they therefor must be the same person. At Isaiah 44 is a clear title for God with no qualification. When Rev1:17 refers to Jesus it is with reference to his resurrection "I am the first and the last,and the living one, and i became dead,
but, look i am living forever"
Rev 2:8 indicates the same meaning. "I am the first and the last, who became dead and came to life".
@steveparadise1 That is exactly what you assume about Jesus and Michael. You're own logic says you are wrong. You see that Michael is higher than other heavenly beings, and notice that Jesus is obviously higher than what we know as angels, and cite that as proof they are the same. We have concrete Bible verses saying that Jesus is God people attempt to pick apart, but you twist Bible verses together that fall apart without need of any picking. There is not one verse that says Jesus is Michael.
The Father did not have sex to have His Son like humans do. The Father formed the Son from His bosom. Imagine a big pail of water (the Father) now take a cup of water out of the pail and now you have the Son. The Son is the image of the Father. The Father created all things through the image Son. The Father gave life of His own to the Son and a will to choose. The Father & the Son are the same but the Son is a lessor manifestation of the Father. Jesus said if you see me you see the Father.
wilby1414 1 week ago
@wilby1414 The God of the old testament is not the Father--but the Son, the great I am. In Isaiah 43:10 ...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me..
Only the Son knows the mind of the Father because they have the same mind, they think alike. The Son does the will of the Father because He is of the Father, made of the same energy / substance or whatever that pure life is that they possess. But one thing is sure -- it is pure LIFE. To receive LIFE receive Christ in YOU!
wilby1414 1 week ago
Jesus also says if you have seen my face then you have seen the Fathers face. Meaning they was the same.
KingDavid478 1 week ago
Ex 23v20,21 God said I will send my angel, obey him for my name
is in him.
Michael meaning 'he who is like God'- references: Heb chapter 1 & 2.
Hebrews 2v16- for verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but
he took on him the seed of Abraham.
whitebootsify 2 weeks ago
4. 3:34 lie, they believe the spirit is the energy within you like electricity and therefore have a spirit!!!
5. 4:00-8:00 JW's do not deny Jesus is called God they deny he's equal with the father therefore not the only true God as Jesus himself says in John 17:3, he said I am many times before he was the messiah and he had authority from his father to make such claims
teflonfanatic 3 weeks ago
1. 1:32 agreed but John 1:1 fuss is stupid because the father himself is called a god in scripture Therefore his argument crumbles because the israelites already did this with Jeremiah 23:23 and many more.
2. 2:39 Jehovah's authority of course by following christ your ultimately obeying the father
3. 2:43 That's not how linguistic scholars(the people who write the dictionary) define cult by don't take my word for it look it up yourself!!!!!
CONTINUED!!!!!!!!
teflonfanatic 3 weeks ago
James White is a pure Calvinist and John Calvin taught that Jesus is Michael. I'm not a SDA or JW ... I'm just speaking facts.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC Haha that's actually pretty funny. The quote is apparently somewhat disputed, but never let it be said I defend John Calvin...what a scumbag. It seems that I more and more disagree with this James White fellow, but I still think he makes some good points here.
joevox316 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC Michael & Jesus are not the same. Just because Michael says 'the Lord rebuke you' (Jude 9) doesn't mean that he is the same 'Angel of the LORD' in Zechariah 3:2 that says the same thing. For one, Jude 9 says that Michael 'did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment.' Jesus has all authority given to Him on Heaven & Earth (Matthew 28:18). Also Jesus comes with the VOICE on the archangel but it doesn't say that Jesus IS the archangel (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC, also keep in mind, Jesus & Satan are both referred to as lions, morning stars, & light-bearers, but that doesn't mean that Jesus is Satan. Michael is a created being, while Jesus is not. Michael is the commander of ISRAEL, not the Church. Michael in Jude 9 is clearly not Jesus, & the Angel of the LORD is clearly God/Jesus - not Michael. This Web site clearly demonstrates why Biblically, they are not the same:
got questions, then type: Jesus Michael Archangel
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN Compare Rev 20 to Daniel 12:1-2. Thanks.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC I have. In Daniel 12:1-2 Michael is the great prince who stands guard over ISRAEL ("the sons of your people") during the Tribulation period. In Revelation 20:1, 'an angel' comes down from Heaven to bind Satan AFTER Jesus returns with His Church after the Tribulation (Revelation 19:11-16). It is unclear if 'an angel' refers to Michael or not, but it's NOT Jesus. Jesus does resurrect the OT saints, but Daniel doesn't say that Michael resurrects them.('rescue')(cont)
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC (cont) BTW, since I read the verses you provided, did you read the verses & Web site that I provided? Also, check out this video on YouTube which explains where the idea of Michael being the same as Jesus originally came from:
watch?v=NX5YGRfY98Q
As Christians we have to be careful in drawing parallels where there are none. Otherwise, we are breaking God's 1st & most important commandment by worshiping an angel as if he were God, which Jesus warned us about.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN It is obvious that Michael is the preincarnate Jesus as that is His identity prior to becoming man. Jesus is also returning with a new name (Rev 2, 20) so why isn't it logical to believe that He had a different name prior to becoming man.
It is so obvious that Spurgeon, Gill, Wesley, Edwards, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Scott, Hawels, Adam Clarke and the Geneva Bible, Abingdon Bible and Lange's commentaries all arrive at the same conclusion.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC no it is not 'obvious' but it is a conclusion that many people draw but that doesn't make it true. The Angel of the LORD is no doubt Jesus, but implying that the Angel of the LORD = Jesus is an assumption. The 'new name' in Revelation 2:17 is GIVEN to the saved ('those who RECEIVE it'). Jesus returns with the name 'Faithful & True' (Revelation 19:11). If Jesus is Michael then why does He 'not dare' bring an accusation against Satan if Jesus was given all authority?
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC in regards to Spurgeon, Calvin, etc. just because some of their doctrines (such as Calvinism) are Biblically-based, we shouldn't assume that ALL of what they preached is. We still need to compare what they preached against SCRIPTURE. For example, Calvin was amillennial, yet the Bible teaches a literal 'Millennial Kingdom' after the return of Chris. If you believe Michael is Jesus, then you are worshiping an angel. Michael is THE archangel, but he is just an angel.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN Look at what you just said: "Michael is THE archangel, but he is just an angel". Your sentence completely contradicts itself. The archangel is obvously not "just" an angel. It's the CHIEF of the angels - Jesus is the LORD of Hosts ... SAME THING!
This traditional understanding of winged angels is so childish. It's Roman Catholic nonsense.
Jesus is "Angel of the LORD" in the OT. Does that make Him "just" an angel also? I'm sorry but that's a double standard on your part.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC, Daniel states Michael is the 'chief prince' - the chief prince amongst the angels, which why he is the archangel. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. To draw a parallel between the 2 is stretching Scripture. Chief & Lord is NOT the same thing.The OT describes Jesus as 'THE Angel of the LORD' while other angels. like Gabriel are called 'AN angel.' Michael is THE archangel meaning he is head of the angels but THE archangel & THE Angel of the LORD is an unbiblical parallel
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC the idea of angels having angels is not childish or Roman Catholic in origin. Isaiah describes the Seraphim as having 6 wings. Ezekiel describes the Cherabim as having 4 wings. The ark of the covenant has two Cherabim which had wings. The 'four living creatures' in Revelation which are angels have 6 wings. The belief that Jesus is Michael is based on Ellen G. White & Charles Taze Russeell who were both false prophets & influenced by the false prophet William Miller
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN This is exaclty why I'm done wasting my time. Things you say are just factually wrong.
First, how can the idea of Jesus being Michael begin with Rusell and Miller when I can give you proof of Calvin, Wesley and others making this claim prior to either of them being born?
Second, Cherbim and Sepharim are NOT mentioned as angels.
Third, there is no pretrib Rapture. Do some research on futurism and dispensationalism. It's a lie invented by the Jesuits.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC sorry you consider this 'wasting your time.' I considered it a chance to share each others views, despite our disagreements. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am 'factually wrong.' Could it mean that you are misinterpreting Scripture?
Even if Calvin/Wesley believed Michael=Jesus we still have to compare their views TO SCRIPTURE, which doesn't support their views. Russell/Miller were both influenced by Miller, & both came to same conclusion(cont).
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN My friend. Opinion is one thing, but when you make absolute statements like the "Jesus/Michael thing started with Miller and Russll" when many Baptists and Reformers taugh the same thing up to 200 years prior to both of them, that is a factual error.
Today's Christianity is based more on tradition than actual Scripture. We see this in doctrines and in practices. Most come from the Catholic Church and paganism but it's still practiced in Evangelical denominations.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC FYI, I am not Catholic, nor is my faith based on 'church tradition' or my personal interpretation, but rather on a literal view of Scripture, based on the original languages. The belief that Jesus=Michael, whether it's based on Miller/White/Russell/the Reformers, etc. is based on HUMAN interpretation of Scripture, rather than on what Scripture actually reveals.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC Cherub (kĕruwb - an angelic being). Seraphim (saraph - majestic beings with 6 wings). Angel (mal'ak - angel, messenger, representative / aggelos - an angel, messenger from God). If you cross-reference these you find out that they are NOT people. Revelation 4 describe them as 'four living creatures' in Heaven with the same characteristics as Ezekiel 1, which are identified as cherub in Ezekiel 10 & Seraphim in Isaiah 6. Jesus said he would come with his angels cont)
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN I don't care what the concordance says. Show me in the Bible where is says Cherubs and Seraphim are "Angels". Then show me where it says "angels" have wings. The Bible only says cherubs and seraphim have wings, not angels. Angel means messenger. Cherubs and Seraphim are not "messengers".
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC so now you are not believing in concordances, which explain what Biblical words actually mean in the original languages? Sounds your faith is based on your understanding rather than God's.
Isaiah 14:12-15 describes the fall of Lucifer. Ezekiel describes him as 'the anointed CHERUB' (Ezekiel 28:12-15). Cherub are described as having 4 WINGS (Ezekiel 1:5-6). Revelation 9:11 describe the ANGEL of the abyss as Apollyon - Greek for Destroyer, a name for Satan.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC (cont) I don't have space to go into the 'pretrib rapture/dispensationalism' discussion, however, I have researched this in depth, & premillennialism predates Darby & MacDonald by well over 1,500 yrs. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) was premillennial, but later changed his view to amillennial. Pseudo-Ephreim around the same time describes a pre-trib rapture. Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Papias, Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Lactantius, Clement of Rome (cont)
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN I have read many of those you mentioned and of course they were futurists because at that time, 90% of Revelation was yet to be fulfilled. All of those men you mentioned above stated clearly that the man of sin would stem from Rome after it was split into 10 Kingdoms. It is clearly the papacy and the Roman Church (see Rev 17).
Futhermore, the pretrib rapture is foreign to these men. Darby is the "father of Dispensationalism" in the modern sense. Google "Francisco Ribera".
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC 90% of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled. The seals are yet to be opened, & the trumpet & bowl judgments haven't happened yet. The antichrist is yet to be revealed. The 100 million army wasn't possible in John's day due to the population. Christ hasn't returned from heaven on a white horse.
The 10 Kingdoms in Revelation 17:9 is NOT the papacy, just because Rome sat on 7 hills. They represent 7 heads of 10 WORLD kingdoms who 'make war with the Lamb' (v.7-14).
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC (cont) all these were either premillennial and/or pre-trib. Other views (amillennial, post-trib, mid-trib, prewrath, etc) came centuries later. But even the views of early church fathers need to be compared to SCRIPTURE, which describe the Church 'keeping from' (Gr: 'out of') the 'HOUR of trial' (the Tribulation) which shall come upon the whole world. De Lacunza was a Jesuit who described the Rapture but Jesuits are Catholics who are amillennial. Pretrib IS Biblical
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BornAgainRN
No man has seen GOD at any time. If we love one another, GOD will dwell in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 1John.4:12,13
And He(LORD GOD) said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exodus.33:20
Jesus said, and the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape. John.5:37
epic103 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BornAgainRN
No man has seen GOD at any time. If we love one another, GOD will dwell in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 1John.4:12,13
And He(LORD GOD) said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Exodus.33:20
Jesus said, and the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape. John.5:37
epic103 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC, sorry, made another typo, instead of 'the idea of angels having angels is not childish or Roman Catholic in origin,' I meant to say 'the idea of angels having WINGS (not 'angels') is not childish or Roman Catholic in origin.' However, I would hope that from reading the rest of the text that you would have figured out what I meant.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN correction - first post, meant to say 'Russell/White were both influenced by Miller' - not, 'Russell/Miller were both influenced by Miller.' But, I think you figured that out. Sometimes I think faster than I type. :)
I'm afraid that your views of angelology, eschatology, & bibliology in general are based on some unreliable sources.
BTW if Michael is Jesus then why does Michael 'dare not bring an accusation to Satan,' but Jesus can since He is given all authority?
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN Question for you. Does Jesus appear in the Old Testament? If so, where does He appear and by what title is He given?
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC I would caution basing your faith on Web sites - most of the time, they have poor Biblical hermeneutics & usually interpret Scripture on THEIR own understanding.
In Genesis 32:24-32, Jacob wrestles with 'a man' who Jacob later states he has 'seen God face to face.' Since no one can see God & live, this is clearly a Christophany. When the angel of the LORD (all caps) is mentioned, this is a Theophany. Scripture does not support AOTL=the archangel-THIS is tradition.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC - correction - in the first post, I meant to write 'The Angel of the LORD is no doubt Jesus, but implying that the Angel of the LORD = MICHAEL (not Jesus) is an assumption." Sorry for the misunderstanding. Everything else is correct.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN My point is that you all want to give Calvin and the others a pass but you won't do the same to others.
Jesus is the "Angel of the LORD" as you stated. Daniel calls this angel "Michael" or "Who is like God (?)". Why is this so hard for people to get? It's not insinuating that Jesus is a created being, it's simply saying that the archangel or "highest messenger" is another identity of Christ - as is Emmanuel, the Word of God, the Lamb of God, etc.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC that's because Calvinism can actually be backed up by Scripture. Michael being Jesus cannot. "Who is like God?" is a question, which is what Michael means. It doesn't mean that Michael IS God. It is to convey that no one is like God. You are drawing parallels between Jesus & Michael by taking Scripture out of context.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@BornAgainRN Also, the Bible clearly states that the dead will be awoken with the "voice of the Son of God" at Christ's return in John 5. 2 Thes 4:16 states that Christ is returning with the "archangel's voice" and the dead will be raised. Now, don't give me that nonsense that they are different voices. It is clearly the same. Stop letting your man-made traditions and the Book of Enoch do the thinking for you.
Angel means messenger. It's not a creature with wings. Jesus is THE messenger.
FAITHandLOGIC 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC angels don't always mean angelic beings like Michael. In Revelation 2 angels, or messengers, are human leaders of the 7 earthly churches. John 5:25 is about the 2nd Coming when He gathers His elect from across the world & unites them with His raptured Church. 1 Thessalonians is about the rapture. 2 different events. If anyone is adhering to man-made traditions, it's you, who base your beliefs on 2 false religions - JW's & SDA, with histories of false prophecies.
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@FAITHandLOGIC one last thing, in Matthew 4:10, Jesus successfully rebukes Satan, while in Jude 9, Michael 'dares not' rebuke him. Peace!
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
Phillipians 2 talks about morphe= visible appearance station and position it doesn't talk about ousia or same substance or nature. Who in form of God/Elohim (morphe theou) existing not seizure/snatching considered he to be equal to God/Elohim.
Szygyify 1 month ago
James White is an NIV NASB proponent because he believes the KJV robs the Deity of Christ in certain passages. His presentation in defense of Historical Orthodox Christianity is abysmal and full of holes teeming with eisegetical biases if he can't present his own theological position without twisting words and facts...
Szygyify 1 month ago
Phillipians 2 doesn't speak about nature but it does speak about Jesus' morphe= resemblance and equality. Kenneth S. Wuest, states we learn that in Koine Greek the word morphe had come to refer to “a station in life, a position one holds, one’s rank. And that is an approximation of morphe in this context [Philippians 2]” (The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, p. 84). If you use the NIV then we get James White's interpretation of Morphe as "nature"
Szygyify 1 month ago
KJV Romans 9:5 Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ(1) [came], who is over all, God(2) blessed for ever. Amen.Two!!! KJV Colossians 1 Prototokos= first born of every creature Phillipians 2 Morphe= The overwhelming majority of uses of [morphe] in all of Greek literature denoted the idea of the form or the shape of someone or something, but even more critical, the uses expressed the fact that [morphe] denoted an EXTERNAL form or shape observable by sight.
Szygyify 1 month ago
KJV Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God (1) and our Saviour Jesus Christ(2) Two! KJV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God(1) and our Saviour Jesus Christ(2) Two!! KJV destroys Granville Sharpe's rule in these two proof texts that James White refers to!
Szygyify 1 month ago
Is he a God or the second Hypostases in a Triune Godhead?
Szygyify 1 month ago
John 14:28 The Father is greater than I. In John 17:11 he prays to the Father... Jesus was given the name. In John 18:5-6 Jesus says "Ego Eimi " so when he said Ego Eimi they drew back and fell to the ground. Jesus prays to the Father but he uses the Father's name because he is the Father? In John 4:26 he says Ego Eimi as the Messiah not that he's God. John 6:20 he says Ego Eimi as Jesus Son of God, Lord and God, Rabbi, Son of God equal to God, The Father is Greater than I who is Jesus?
Szygyify 1 month ago
John 1:1 in the Koine Greek reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God and God was the Word". The Logos is Monogenes theos in John 1:18 the only begotten God, Oh lest we forget Thomas in John 20:28 who called Jesus "my Lord and my God". The Jews were to stone Jesus for calling himself the Son of God equal to God. Jesus in John 8:58 said "Ego Eimi" which is LXX's name for the Father in Exodus 3:14. Jesus called the father the only true God John 17:3. Who is Jesus?
Szygyify 1 month ago
The Divinity of Christ was proclaimed as Dogma in the First Council of Nicea presided by both Emperor Constantine and Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria and in the First Council of Constantinople convoked by Emperor Theodosius I and presided by Gregory Nazianzus the premier Platonic-Christian trinitarian theologian who helped create the definitive creedal formulae for the doctrine of the trinity. All Hail Caesar oops I mean Jesus!!!
Szygyify 1 month ago
Incarnation Theology was expounded by Athanasius of Alexandria a hotbed of Gnosticism, Jesus the "God Man or Hypostatic Union" was expounded and codified first in the Council of Ephesus presided by Cyril of Alexandria with the blessing of the Emperor Theodosius and in the the Council of Chalcedon presided by a board of government officials and senators, led by the patrician Anatolius with the blessings of Emperor Marcian. Long Live the Bible!
Szygyify 1 month ago
2:10 so the greek scholars had Youtube to subcribe to back in the day
JeySivaNavam 2 months ago
@mayyiuhavepeace
You sound like the Pharisees. You to would have been yelling Crucify Him...that's Blasphemy!
igniteJC 2 months ago
ect.. interfaith, using idols and images in " christian " religions. Pagan teachings creeping into Christianity... homosexuality in the clergy, having a " Clergy " class, using religious titles, Apostolic succession..All these things are unscriptural, YHWH, YAHWEH, YEWIH, GOD, and no true follower of Christ accept these as proper. Job was not a " christian ' or even Jewish, he was an oriental, he probably had no idea what his creators name was. He just practiced righteousness.
jojojunfan 2 months ago
What about John 1:14? Also, any JW that I ever spoke with believed that Jesus was really " in the flesh", as a man. Otherwise he could not be an equal ransom for Adams sins. JW'S just dont believe that Jesus is the ALMIGHTY. You should get your hands on CD libraries and get it from the source, even if you do not agree. You would not like others to publish inaccuracies about your faith. Also, there are bigger issues to discuss, like " being no part of the world" like Jesus, i.e.WAR,POLITICS,ect
jojojunfan 2 months ago
Let's leave it there, have a nice day too.
All the best.
younot2funny 2 months ago
Gotcha!
younot2funny 2 months ago
@younot2funny Say what?
joevox316 2 months ago
@younot2funny Meh. Never mind. Have a nice evening whoever you are lol
joevox316 2 months ago
Just because he says things that are not to your liking does not make him a fool.
Some good points were made. But you can't stop him from commenting everywhere, so have you really achieved anything by blocking him - or just silencing another free voice?
I don't think so. Ciao
younot2funny 2 months ago
So this is how it goes when somebody takes on the Trinity here on YouTube .
You blocked him, right?
Is that being like a coward?
younot2funny 2 months ago
@younot2funny Sigh...if he just wants to throw meaningless insults and add nothing to serious discussion, I have every right to block him from filling the comments on this video that I posted with rubbish like that if I so choose. I am not in any way "running" from his "superior arguments and logic" I assure you. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Prov 26:4 "Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words" P23:9
joevox316 2 months ago
@joevox316 AMEN!
BornAgainRN 1 month ago
@mayuhavepeace lol I knew you'd say that. The only reason people say that is because John 5:7 is not in most translations of old texts that we have now. However, 1 John itself is mostly absent except for a smattering of snippets. Going by that limited logic, the entire book of 1 John should be considered spurious, but nobody says it should be excluded, they just target that one verse. It is a flawed argument. Many did not survive, but 1 J 5:7 was in almost all ancient manuscripts.
joevox316 2 months ago
@mayuhavepeace The first (and most) mentions of the name Michael in the Bible are applied to various humans, so that's not a fantastic argument for Michael being Jesus. Also, Michael is described as a prince, never a king. Prince is is a designation attributed to various angelic beings in the Bible. The main issue is what Jesus is. The fact is that He is the "mighty God" and the "everlasting Father," and not a created being (Is. 9:6).
joevox316 2 months ago
@joevox316
> not a fantastic argument for Michael being Jesus
Really ???
Are you also aware that other HUMANS are called JESUS in the Bible too: ???
Mat 4:29 "Jesus, son of Eliezer" was one of Jesus own ANCESTORS, yes he had an ANCESTOR CALLED "JESUS".
My youngest son is called Joshua, and is in fact named after JESUS.
Indeed Jesus is the Greek way of saying the Hebrew name Yeshua or Joshua to us today.
Jehovah's Witnesses are STUDENTS of the Bible, REAL STUDENTS!
mayuhavepeace 2 months ago
@joevox316
There are TWELVE people in the Bible with the name Jesus or Jeshua - same name. Jesus was never called Jesus to his own face, he spoke Hebrew. He would have use the name Yeshua or Jeshua. The name Jesus is the Greek variation. There are still OTHERS with the larger variations of the name like Jehoshua. We are now over FIFTEEN.
Similarly, there are ELEVEN persons called Michael.
Where is the problem with Michael also called Jesus because other humans?
Irrelevant!
mayuhavepeace 2 months ago
@mayuhavepeace "Irrelevant!" Yes...that was my point. Why is that the only thing in my entire comment you latched onto? No need to get so worked up about it; you yourself say its irrelevant, which again, was kind of my point. Simply put, the issue is whether or not Jesus is a created being, which he is not.
joevox316 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joevox316
> No need to get so worked up about it;
What a childish thing to say. Are you always this condescending?
mayuhavepeace 2 months ago
@joevox316
You assert that Jesus is not created? Then you are denying Jesus is REALLY is the ***Son*** of God.
You can only be somebody's son if you get LIFE from them.
WORSE: It denies the Father.
A Father can only be a Father - IF HE GIVES LIFE.
When Jesus called God his FATHER and called his disciples BROTHERS, that shows he is the COMMON FATHER OF *ALL* OF US.
And that ***INCLUDES*** Jesus.
No argument, FACT !!!
mayuhavepeace 2 months ago
@mayuhavepeace There's more going on here than you assume. The Bible fully supports the Trinity and that Jesus is God, on many occasions. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)" It's not always easy to understand how Jesus can be the Son and the Father, but the fact is that God is three yet one. Jesus is the "Mighty God" and the "Everlasting Father."
joevox316 2 months ago
@joevox316
Why is the Trinity blinding people to believe what is total nonsense?
The fact that Jesus called his disciples BROTHERS and "he was no ashamed to call them BROTHERS" - and that GOD IS THE ***FATHER*** OF US ***ALL**.
The Trinity distorts the simple and MOST BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP of the Father and the Son by DENYING IT.
Only Satan could be behind getting between a loving Father and a Son that adores the Father and OBEYS HIM IN EVERY DETAIL.
It's BLASPHEMY!
mayuhavepeace 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joevox316
For he(Jesus) received from GOD the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 2Peter.1:17
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that He(Father, Jehovah) is your GOD. John.8:54
That with with one heart and mouth glorify the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans.15:6
The GOD of Jesus is the only true GOD!!
epic103 2 months ago
"Truly Truly, I say to you Before Abraham was I am"
gilbert4321 3 months ago
@gilbert4321
Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD our GOD is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark.12:29,30
In Mark.12:29,30 Jesus is not speaking about himself!! He is speaking about the LORD his GOD!! His GOD is the Father(Yahweh).
The GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Father(Yahweh), not Jesus!!!
epic103 3 months ago
@epic103 Still not seeing the name Michael... and let me put this to you. You guys claim that Michael was the first creation but Michael wasn't always the lead arch angel. Before him satan was before he fell and the bible says that his name was lucifer (light bringer) and was the most beautiful creation ever created but his pride was his fall.
Do you know how easy it would be for satan to show up to someone and make himself look like an angel of light and pretend his name is Michael...
gilbert4321 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gilbert4321
When did I mention Michael???
I was just explaining that in Mark.12:29,30 Jesus is not speaking about himself!! He is speaking about the LORD his GOD!! His GOD is the Father(Yahweh).
The GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Father(Yahweh), not Jesus!!!
epic103 3 months ago
Satan is a fallen Angel/Messenger so Jesus can never be equated as an exalted Angel/Messenger read Hebrews 1: 4-13 . Jesus must then be God Jehovah himself!
Szygyify 3 months ago
The Bible only reveals the Triune Godhead not his panoply of God and gods! That is why we must avoid reading Jewish Apocalyptic writings and other Second Temple Jewish pseudo-pigraphical writings with their strange notions of Michael the Archangel as the prototypical priest-king Melchizedek or Michael as a god commander of the Angelic hosts defender of Jehovah's name and sovereignty.
Szygyify 3 months ago
The belief of The God Jehovah and "a god" the Logos or pre-human Jesus smacks of polytheism. Similar in fact to the strange polytheistic Judaism found in the Dead Sea Scrolls were Angels are called "gods" and "sons of god" and to Second Temple Judaic polytheism in general where human Kings and God's human messengers are called Gods and sons of God in general.
Szygyify 3 months ago
Because the God of the Bible is really a Triune Who sharing One What. The Biblical God a What cannot be confused with the JW's concept of Jehovah as a personal God who has a unique personality. The OT clearly does not teach this! Because Jesus is God, eternally begotten not made sharing the same nature with the person of the Father read Joh 1:1 he cannot be identified as JW's do as being a singular distinct person, the Chief Messenger the First born of all of Jehovah's works.
Szygyify 3 months ago
cont. The Holy Spirit Parakletos is a "He" denoting masculine personality in the NT,The Holy Spirit is also an "IT" Agion Pneuma in the NT and is feminine Ruach haKodesh in the OT. The Third person of the One Being has One nature described in three distinct ways. The three persons (Who's) co equal and co eternal as Father Son and Holy Spirit sharing the One What (Divine Nature). Cannot be separated. So Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel.
Szygyify 3 months ago
@Szygyify
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth. Psalm.83:18
Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Matt.11:25
The One who is above all is the Almighty Father!!!
There is only one Most High GOD, and that's the Father(Jehovah)
Jesus is the Son of the Most High, and the Most High is Jehovah(Father)
It's that simple!!!
epic103 3 months ago
@epic103 Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is the Archangel Michael?
Szygyify 3 months ago
@Szygyify
When did I mention Michael the Archangel???
I was just explaining who the Most High GOD is according to the Scriptures!!
epic103 3 months ago
Jesus (The person of the Son) shares the same Divine nature as Jehovah (The person of the Father) Jesus is Jehovah Incarnate who became the God Man a person (A Who) with two beings(Two What's) one Divine one Human. Emmanuel "God with us". When Jesus' Human nature died on the Cross, the Divine nature which never died separated from the Human nature and returned to the Godhead. Since Jesus was no longer on Earth God the Father sent his Holy Spirit ( the person of the Holy Spirit)cont...
Szygyify 3 months ago
Ok, I don't dance around questions when involving scripture and insult others and say they twist scripture, no saying you are just saying that i'm direct. I'm not going to lie to you or hide from the fact that they're both called mighty God, but where in the bible is Jesus called almighty?
teflonfanatic 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I understand both sides of this debate, both are not clearly taught in scripture so it must be inferred from many scriptures. My question for those who don't believe Jesus is Michael, can 2 spirit beings reign as King at the same time? And if so wouldn't that contradict the bibles prophecy of having only one king wear the crown of David at the end times?
teflonfanatic 3 months ago
It's fairly obvious Jesus is God. People are still arguing about this?
trrose9485 3 months ago
Jesus Is God fully but came into our world with limits.Michael needs Jesus just as much as you.
moomman89 4 months ago
I uploaded a video response to this, why haven't you approved it? Afraid of the truth?
ewatchmandotcom 4 months ago
I have been very busy and wasn't able to watch it when you sent it, then I forgot (again, very busy). I was considering watching it and approving, but now I am not sure. Your comment could be perceived as somewhat insulting. I have encountered many JWs that debate by way of insulting the other person, insinuating they are stupid and just generally being unpleasant instead of having a peaceable debate (can be said of both sides, I know). If you do not do that on a regular basis I would approve.
joevox316 4 months ago
@joevox316 I am not interested in debating. I merely posted a a video response that I produced some months back on the topic of Jesus being Michael the archangel. It is not insulting. It is simply offering a reasoned approach to the issue at hand, without the drama. But it is your channel. Do what you want.
ewatchmandotcom 4 months ago
@ewatchmandotcom Alright. Thanks. I watched your video and it was well done. I don't agree of course but you do very good job with your videos. I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions. I have just been burned so many times on YouTube lately I was getting a little tired of it. Thanks for your response and the video. As you say "If you wish to know the truth it is attainable. " It is always nice to have both sides presented. Have a nice day.
joevox316 4 months ago
Gentlemen let's stop flinging childish insults back and forth. Insulting each other accomplishes nothing.
joevox316 4 months ago
@Gideon6640man If you didn't have "man" at the end of your name I would say you were having a tantrum. Who stole your candy?
You need to stop watching anti JW you tube videos. That was just a rant, repeating the usual crap people throw up when they realise that they can't win by using Gods word.
Not one single scriptural argument.
Plenty of mud slinging and character assassinations.
The angel stuff is distorted and laughable
The NWT has much support for all disputed verses
C'mon 6640 get real
steveparadise1 4 months ago
These people has laid up a lot of videos on youtube, mostly attacks against
Hitchens and Dawkins, strangely enough one cannot comment on these
videos, one can wonder why? Cowardice, stupidity or arrogance? To
qoute Londo Mollari: Stupidity and arrogance in one package, how efficient!
MultiKronblom 4 months ago
banana man, lol......
7T1RT 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christ is described in both Daniel 10:5-6 and Revelation 1:13-15. Please read them and see.
So, we know Christ cannot be Michael and that they are not one in the same, because in Daniel 10:13, Christ states that He had Michael to help Him.
Case closed. Christ is not, nor ever was, Michael.
Haarmonics 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz Nevertheless Galatians is part of the bible canon of truth.
As is Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy where he said in 3:16,17 " All scripture is inspired of God, beneficial for teaching, reproving and setting things straight. for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent and completely equipped for every good work".
The bible makes a Christian "completely equipped" nothing else is needed.
Unfortunately the men in the above video are not "fully competent"
steveparadise1 4 months ago
@steveparadise1 So why does the WT distort the Greek text so much? why have they adopted the Wactchtower? a symbol of the Tarot cards? Why all the occult connections even to this day? Do you believe in communicating with the dead for instruction? Russel did and he helped publish Angels and Women. Rutherford claimed that after Russel death he still was teaching "beyond the veil"...so do JW's teach that still? i mean having dead people still teach the living i.e necrmancy? tell us.
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nyguy88L71 "I think Jesus is God made into man am I right yes or no?"
First we are made in HIS/God's image.
Please read your message in your inbox.
milkydud 5 months ago
why not just take Jesus at His Word. He said He was the root of David and the Morning Star. Why so called christians feel the need to use mental speculation is evidence of their ignorance of scripture and lack of faith in their guru as well as a general lack of spiritual principals.The Vani or speech of the spiritual master is to be considered as good as the Vapu or physical presence.A little less self worship and more study of scripture and prayer under proper guidance is in your best interest.
TheManolakis 5 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz Galations 1:8,9 says "However even if an angel out of heaven declares to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news let him be accursed".
That's the quran out of it then, along with the book of Mormon
So "the quran sets the record straight" does it !
So you are saying that the God of Mohamed cannot protect the accuracy of the bible He inspired. lol
Of the 99 names you have for God. What one best describes this failing in almighty God ?
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 galatians was a letter written by paul where he gives guidance to that community and I highly doubt he ever thought his letters will even make it into the bible. anyways that is a sepaate debate.
God of muhammad, jesus, moses, abraham is the same god and he reveals his message suitable for that time period. He doesnt need to preserve the previous message if he is revealing a new one, plus he has given humans free will and if they change his word, its their fault.
NeXuzMotionzz 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz lol are you serious? or just being silly? the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is NOT Allah who had a "prophet" called Mohammad who was a murderer,child rapist,thief,deceiver,liar etc... you get the idea. Yeshua would have NOTHING to do with such an evil man excpet to have him repent or judge adn that's it. this nonsense you expouse is not only nutty it's dishonest.
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
@Gideon6640man "And to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. They will be recompensed for what they have been doing." Quran, 7:180
I think you dont have a strong defence so like many others, you just defile the last messenger of god. All the prophets came with a basic message which is that god is one. If you find that dishonest and silly, then you are entitled to your opinion.
NeXuzMotionzz 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz I defiled no messenger of G-d at all. Abraham->Moses->David->the Prophets-> Jesus...all point to him not your pedophile prophet..So why are you comfortable with a 54 y/o man having sex witha 9 y/o girl? what are you about guy? You like little girls? or little boys maybe? Un my opinion that is sick and disgusting......do you?
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
@Gideon6640man yes abusing little girls and exploiting them by using the status like all those catholic priests did is sick and disgusting . But which paedophile MARRIES the child he "abuses" with consent of her parents and gives her full rights and she becomes the leading scholars of islam in her time and the "paedophile" dies in her arms? lol
Now are u comfy with Judah fucking his daughter in law who gives birth to twins who become the forefathers of jesus, and god doesnt punish judah??? lol
NeXuzMotionzz 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz oops here is the reference too, GENESIS 38:15-I8. Since we r on the topic, r you comfortable with, two daughters fucking their father, namely lot (GENESIS 19:33-35)? Jacob's eldest son reuben fucks bilhah, whose the concubine of his father(GENESIS 35:22.)?? Son fucking all the wives of his daddy called King David in PUBLIC, basically a public orgy if you like, (2 SAMUEL 16:22)?? god doesnt mind
And Slavery is permitted by god = LEVITICUS 25:46
Are you feeling comfortable now? lol
NeXuzMotionzz 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz The language on you...lol Your response speaks for itself...btw Im not Catholic so your insult was misdirected.
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
@Gideon6640man lol i have given you references, this is what the bible is saying and i have made it easy for you to understand by using modern english in case you dont undrstand the biblical language such as the word harlot being used for a whore. So my response is based on the filth in the bible which was added later on as the centuries went by. This is not directed only at catholics its directed at anyone who takes the bible as the word of god. Maybe u should identify your faith clearly. :)
NeXuzMotionzz 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz No you twisted scripture and made, once again vauge refrences....ther is NO verse that either says or suggests that Jesus is Michael...NONE. so shut up clown.
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
@Gideon6640man "shut up clown" really?? what happened to offering the other cheek? anyways, I am not going to attack you personally. But I dont think my references were vague since I clearly gave you the chapter + verse numbers in the second part of my reply.
I never said jesus is michael lol, your insult is the misdirected one not mine. He cant b michael because he never HIMSELF ever said that he is an arch-angel. Just like he never HIMSELF said that he is GOD.
NeXuzMotionzz 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz You gave me NO text that shows Jesus is Michael you liar. Insult? you insult the Son of the living G-d .
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
@Gideon6640man lol read this very carefully. I AM NOT A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS, I DONT believe jesus is arch-angel michael. I hope this is clear to you. The references I gave were about the filth in the bible.
As far as insulting the son of the living god is concerned. The living god does NOT have a son or a daughter or a father or a mother or a grandparent or an uncle or an aunt. Stop insulting the living god! The first commandment is to believe in 1 god not 3 gods in 1.
NeXuzMotionzz 4 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz Oh please the G0d of the Bible does not have pedophile peophet raping 9 y/o girls is what he does not have. Eat a pork sandwich and beer relax. You have ZERO proof from the Bible that Michael is Jesus.........ZERO. Allah was chosen by your "prophet" form over 300 Arabic deites and the Kabbah was worshipped by the same people, then your pedophile pimp came along and endorsed musrder,rape and beating of women, stealing, anitSemitic drivel etc....your Allah is the flase Moon god.
Gideon6640man 3 months ago
@Gideon6640man the claim by robert morey that Allah is the south arabian moon god has been refuted with clear evidence, in fact, it is forbidden to worship any idols or make an image of god in islam, but we see statues in churches. A disciple of the prophet gave call to prayer by standing on the kabah, who stands on top of the thing they worship? lol
"eat pork & beer, relax"?? Ephesians 5:18 - "And be not drunk with WINE ..." Leviticus 11:7-8 = prohibits pork. Do you even read your bible? lol
NeXuzMotionzz 3 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz Robert who? whatever, the FACT about the Moon gods is not refutable so please example is your Crecent Moon symbol of the pagan god "Syn" .. Statues in what churches? oh you mean Roman Catholics, well they are just as wrong and funny they have, like your prophet a thing with liitle kids. Im not under Levitical Law since Yeshua came we are under the New Covenant, read your Bible. The Quran says Urine is good for you...is it? Your dome of the rock is an abomanation to my people.
Gideon6640man 3 months ago
@Gideon6640man Robert Morey, he is the person who came up with the "fact" of the so called moon god and he's been proven incorrect. Go do some OBJECTIVE research. The Crescent Moon symbol is NOT related to Islam and this symbol pre-dates Islam lol. Provide references like I did when you talk about the Quran please.
"not under levitical law"? OK I quoted you about not drinking wine from Ephesians, that's in New Testament lol. You forget that Yeshua was a jew and he was circumcised lol.
NeXuzMotionzz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gideon6640man this is how bible punishes rapists. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT = "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
God of the bible wants the victim of rape to marry her attacker!! that is sick and disgusting. You need to read your own book before pointing fingers!!! lol
NeXuzMotionzz 3 months ago
Anything that Demishing Jesus reeks of the Devils pee. Thats plain and simple truth. Never will I ever deminish Christ to an Angel. No angel deserves the glory that Jesus My Lord and my God does.
cedella212 5 months ago
@cedella212 anything that degrades god to a human form reeks of devil's pee. Anything that converts god's creation (humans) into his other creations (angels) reeks of devil's peee. Anything which splits the ONE true god into 3 while still preeching god is a unity reeks of devil's pee. Anything that worships a human being reeks of devil's pee. Worship the god of adam, noah, abraham, moses, jesus, .... instead of worshipping god's prophet!! He will come again to correct u anyways so no worries :)
NeXuzMotionzz 5 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz Thank you, for your reply I shall take your words on board. I aint Worried amigo. My eyes have been opened but thank you :) Thank you very much. very insightful :)
cedella212 5 months ago
@joevox316 It's a shame you are so blinded by the trinity that you would use verses that are no more inspired of God than the "book of Mormon" and the "Qua ran". For myself, I prefer the words of Jesus himself " I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" John 20:17.
All the best friend
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 I also prefer the words of Jesus and Jehovah himself: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30). Its a shame you're too blinded by Satanic lies about Jesus to believe the Heavenly Father. I do truly wish you the best friend.
joevox316 5 months ago 4
@joevox316 so you are also quoting john 10:30 "I and my father are one." And obviously you take that verse literally but why dont you take the verse before that literally which says My father is greater than I? Why pick and choose the verses which are in favor of his divine nature and ignore the ones which show him to be a human or just refuse to take those verses literally and make up an interpretation which negates the literal meaning of the verse? Why the double standards?
NeXuzMotionzz 3 months ago
I do take the verse before that literally. I also take other verses like that Jesus is "The Mighty God" and "The Everlasting Father" literally (Isaiah 9:6). And verses that say that "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (1 John 5:7)." The fact of the matter is, God is three yet one. I know this to be true beyond earthly intellectual doubt because God's Spirit lives in me and my spiritual blindness is lifted (more or less).
joevox316 3 months ago
@joevox316 So you admit the father is a greater entity than the son? If that is the case, then can god really be three yet one? I am struggling to actually come to grips with the concept of trinity. First, the word trinity isnt mentioned in the bible, the closest verse which comes to confirming trinity is the one you just quoted in 1 john 5:7 and this verse has been widely accepted now to be a later insertion into the bible hence not found in the most ancient of manuscripts. Any explanation?
NeXuzMotionzz 3 months ago
Well, I'm not sure I really can fully explain it. It's something that I just know to be true. I take it on faith, because I can never really fully understand it. God created the universe, light and even time itself. He is above these things. I figure if He says that He is three yet one He probably knows how it works better than me, so I take Him at His Word. I have heard it explained by comparing God to the Sun: The Father (Sun), Son (rays from Sun), Holy Ghost (warmth of the rays you feel).
joevox316 3 months ago
As for the manuscripts...I read a report (can't find it--working on it) that presented evidence that the verse was indeed in the majority of ancient source manuscripts, but there were maybe less than a handful that did not have it, which were considered to be altered by blasphemers. Some people say that since the verse is not in the manuscripts we have now, we should ignore it. The entire book of 1 John is mostly missing from current manuscripts, but we certainly don't ignore the whole book.
joevox316 3 months ago
@joevox316 yes well we can take anything on faith, the JW take it on faith to believe jesus is arch-angel michael and give unclear suggestions from the bible to prove this just like the trinitarians use for trinity. But obviously both claim their assumption is the TRUTH. I dont think there is any CLEAR statement in bible where god says that he is three yet one. " He probably knows how it works better than me". We are told to worship god, how can we do that if we dont know EXACTLY what he is?
NeXuzMotionzz 3 months ago
@NeXuzMotionzz Trinity has been explained through the sun, its rays and warmth and with other analogies like matter existing in three states and so on.. but these dont answer my questions. If god is 3 in 1, then jesus dying on the cross means that god died? If god had died, is that not blasphemy?
As for the statement in 1 john, I gather you are trying to say that the blasphemers took the verse out & not the other way around. I would really like to see that report and & the evidence it contains.
NeXuzMotionzz 3 months ago
@joevox316: Wonderful counsellor; no argument there, the mighty God; why is he NEVER referred to as almighty? Everlasting father; if you take this to mean everlasting heavenly father Jesus contradicted himself while he was on Earth because he said only one is your father in heaven and Jesus has BROTHERS, the aniontedones that go to heaven... Prince of Peace; why not king of peace, why is this mighty God who is never called almighty have a subjection title of prince?
teflonfanatic 3 months ago
@teflonfanatic Who is "the mighty God" in Isaiah 10:21? Who is "the mighty God" in Jeremiah 32:18?
Proverbs1533 3 months ago
@joevox316 what is this verse saying?
TheMatrix5381 3 months ago
@steveparadise1 uhhm The quran* sets the record straight actually while you people keep on debating what exactly jesus was. He wasnt/isnt god and trinity is basically splitting god in 3 which the quran clearly rejects. While the actual word trinity isnt found in the bible itslef. But we dont believe that god converted arch-angel michael into human form in mary's womb and then sent angel gabriel (another angel) to inform her about this lol. Jesus was a human & a great messenger of god. Peace!
NeXuzMotionzz 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 Well there is ladies and gentlemen, the cult termites are feasting again as the expense of Yeshua rightful place..steveparadise...You have an abismal understanding of the culture,language ,herminutics,exegesis and not to mention common sense. This is typical of the distortion you have been brainwashed at the Hall and set up straw man arguements and then dismantle thinking you accomplished something when you have not. Name me ONE LEGIT WT SCHOLAR please. The NWT is diabolical.
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
@joevox316 I take it you believe 1 John 5:7 is one of these "concrete bible verses" that support the trinity. Every single serious, honest bible scholar, even trinitarian, will tell you this is a spurious verse that was added to scripture some time in the 13th century. Hence the reason no modern translation includes it.
1 john 5:7 is not inspired scripture. The very reason that this verse found its way into the bible in the first place is because there is no verse that supports a 3 person God
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 Doesn't work. Just look at your nearest mega church to find out why modern versions don't include it. Looking at old manuscripts reveals dozens of old writers and commentators speaking of its inclusion in the Greek manuscripts, except for ones that had been altered by blasphemers. We have more than enough evidence that this verse should be included. I pray that someday your can be like Thomas and even me and confess Jesus as your Lord and your God. I will be praying for you.
joevox316 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 We don't need it...But your WT had to distort John 1:1,8:58, Col 1:15-17,2:9, Heb 1:3 etc....why? becasue they are liears and decievers.Freddy "Kruger" Franz was the only "scholar" and he had only two years of Greek and dropped out..Uner oath in a trail in Scotland, The Pursers Proof, this joker could not translate Genesis 2:4 of which ANY first year Hebrew student can do. George Gangas was ashort order cook .and these are your "scholars" lol Have any LEGIT SCHOLARS?.thought so
Gideon6640man 4 months ago
You say "Jesus was sent to be our savior". I agree. Who sent him? The Father. You say "Jesus is God but he is also the Son"
At Mathew 16 Jesus asks his disciples "Who do you say that I am". Peter answers "You are the Christ Son of the living God" Jesus then went on to say that on that admission and belief he would build his church.
Christendom has chosen to build its church on "God the Son" not "Son of God", or both.
I much prefer to go along with the words of Jesus and Peter than Christendom
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 Of course the Father sent Him. The Bible and even Jesus Himself still says that He is God. Peter answered well as you say. So did Thomas: "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God." John 20:28. Jesus is my Lord and God too, it's a shame He doesn't seem to be yours as well.
joevox316 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 Of course the Father sent Him. The Bible and even Jesus Himself still says that He is God. Peter answered well as you say. So did Thomas: "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God." John 20:28. Jesus is my Lord and God too, it's a shame He doesn't seem to be yours as well.
joevox316 5 months ago
@joevox316 YOUR out of context with John 20:28, Thomas had heard Jesus in prayer at John 17:3
ThirdNUnion 5 months ago
@joevox316 your out of context with John 20:28, Thomas had heard Jesus in prayer at John 17:3
ThirdNUnion 5 months ago
@ThirdNUnion To take something out of context is to take it from it's surrounding material so as to distort it's meaning. I have not done that, and John 17 does not apply here. They both stand on their own quite nicely. Thomas said he would not believe Jesus rose from the dead unless he saw Him and felt Him. Not only does Thomas confess Him as his Lord and God, this is also proof that Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form, and not as just a spirit.
joevox316 5 months ago
@joevox316 exactly, what does your bible say at John20:17and verse 31
ThirdNUnion 5 months ago
@joevox316 The man in the video (above) Dr. White of A+O ministries says this on the trinity and the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Spirit:
"We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Spirit, or the Spirit is the father. It is common for people to misunderstand that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the trinity does not mean this."
I was surprised to by your statement, trinitarians I have spoken to believe the above. 3 separate persons.
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 I'm not James white. They are three persons, but as the BIBLE says "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE." 1 John 5:7
joevox316 5 months ago
@joevox316....Jesus was the "first " to be resurrected to immortality and the "last" to be raised directly by God. Jesus was then given the keys to death and Hades and therefor resurrects others.
Jesus is the "King of kings". Nebuchadnezzar at Daniel 2:36 and At Ezekiel 26:7 is called the "Kings of kings". Does that mean Jesus must be Nebuchadnezzar?
Of course not.
So. Who is the "only true God" according to Jesus at John 17:3? You seem reluctant to answer this vital question
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 I'm not reluctant to answer anything. He is the same God that Thomas said what his God in John 20:28 (when he was speaking to Jesus). The One True God is the God of the Bible, the King of Kings, The Lord of hosts, The Father The Son, and The Holy Spirit. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
joevox316 5 months ago
@joevox316 You are assuming that because two persons share a title,or description, they therefor must be the same person. At Isaiah 44 is a clear title for God with no qualification. When Rev1:17 refers to Jesus it is with reference to his resurrection "I am the first and the last,and the living one, and i became dead,
but, look i am living forever"
Rev 2:8 indicates the same meaning. "I am the first and the last, who became dead and came to life".
steveparadise1 5 months ago
@steveparadise1 That is exactly what you assume about Jesus and Michael. You're own logic says you are wrong. You see that Michael is higher than other heavenly beings, and notice that Jesus is obviously higher than what we know as angels, and cite that as proof they are the same. We have concrete Bible verses saying that Jesus is God people attempt to pick apart, but you twist Bible verses together that fall apart without need of any picking. There is not one verse that says Jesus is Michael.
joevox316 5 months ago
@joevox316 Like John 8:58, the translation of John 1:1 is disputed. Not only by JWs, but many trinitarian scholars and translations.
Nevertheless. Was Jesus lying at John 17:3 (where there is no dispute with translation) when he said, the "Father" is" the only true God"?
Considering, according to trinitarians, the Son is not the Father