Spirituality
24 Aug 12
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by menace71I agree those words are not in the Bible. But what does that have to do with a religious belief that many churces teach as a doctrine and one according to some here say you have to believe and accept to be saved? I see no connection at all in that comparison Manny.
What do you want? I agree with you as far as the word trinity is never used in the scripture. There you have it. The key issue is this "Who Do men say that I am?" Regardless of anything or our finite understanding..... Jesus is the center of everything for mankind. He Jesus is not a created being. He Jesus is not an angel. The father says to obey the son an ...[text shortened]... er. The words Watchtower society of Brooklyn NY are also not in scripture. SO WHAT?
Manny
Those words are just titles and not some biblical belief that we are supposed to do worship with.
So you finally have the trinity word correct but your'e still way off on Jesus not being a creation, the "first born" of all created things, and that he was not an angel which is simple a created spirit being that is not Jehovah. He was an angel.....
Read and learn with the scriptures posted here Manny. You need to learn this.....
Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?
▪ Put simply, the answer is yes. The custom of being called by more than one name is common in many cultures. The same situation occurs with names in the Bible. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also named Israel. (Genesis 35:10) The apostle Peter is named in five different ways—Symeon, Simon, Peter, Cephas, and Simon Peter. (Matthew 10:2; 16:16; John 1:42; Acts 15:7, 14) How can we be sure that Michael is another name for Jesus? Consider the following Scriptural evidence.
The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel. At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the prince of you people.” Next, at Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.”
A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7, which describes “Michael and his angels” as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven.
Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God’s people, even confronting Jehovah’s greatest enemy, Satan.
Jude verse 9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible. The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.
In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?&rdquo😉 and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation&rdquo😉—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”
It is important to note that the human birth of Jesus was not the beginning of his life. Before Jesus was born, Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would conceive a child by means of holy spirit and that she should name the child Jesus. (Luke 1:31) During his ministry, Jesus often spoke of his prehuman existence.—John 3:13; 8:23, 58.
So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll of the disciples taught it. It is the central doctrine of Christianity. Just because they did not label it "THE TRINITY" does not matter. If you do not believe it you can not be saved.
no, your statement is false, neither Christ nor Paul mention it, FACT. You stated that
Christ taught it when in fact he never mentions it.
HaleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd again..........................where did they mention it? You still after 2 years have come up with nothing my friend. We'd love to see these mystery scriptures, really!!!!
All of the disciples taught it. It is the central doctrine of Christianity. Just because they did not label it "THE TRINITY" does not matter. If you do not [b]believe it you can not be saved.
HaleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy![/b]
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75You my friend are too blind to see. Perhaps you would be able to see if you took the Watchtower blindfold off.
And again..........................where did they mention it? You still after 2 years have come up with nothing my friend. We'd love to see these mystery scriptures, really!!!!
Originally posted by galveston75Archangel means "chief angel" not "the chief angel".
I agree those words are not in the Bible. But what does that have to do with a religious belief that many churces teach as a doctrine and one according to some here say you have to believe and accept to be saved? I see no connection at all in that comparison Manny.
Those words are just titles and not some biblical belief that we are supposed to do wor his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archangel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel
It was the archange gabriel (God is my strength) that appeared to the virgin Mary, not Michael.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel
If Michael were "the chief angel" then the angel that came to Daniel would not have called Michiel just "one of the chief princes."
Then he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia. Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.”
(Daniel 10:12-14 NKJV)
Now Michael is "the Chief Prince" over the People of Israel and in this sense he can be called the Archangel Michael, even the angel that came to Daniel told Daniel that Michael was his prince.
Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.
(Daniel 10:20-21 NKJV)
Hebrews Chapter one explains that Christ is better than the angels because the angels are commanded to worship Him as God's Son. Even though He was made a little lower than the angels for a time while He was manifested in the flesh, the angels were still required to worship Him as the Son of God because even though He put on the fleah of man, He remained God.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)
The Holy Bible never says anything about Christ Jesus being the Archangel Michael, even if Michael were the only Archangel. When Christ returns to Earth He will be returning with an army of angels to make war and Michael is the leader of that army and it is his voice that is being referred to in the verse you cited and not the voice of Christ Jesus.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by galveston75Alrighty then. Get you a good English translation of the Bible, even the Old KJV will do. But do not look at the NWT. Start with the Gospel of John for it is the best one for understanding that the Trinity idea is taught. Then you can read the other Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, and if you like, you can get a good believer's bible commentary to help you with difficult verses that you are not sure of, but don't read anything from the watchtower while you are doing this. Now keep your eyes and mind open for things identifying God as the Father and God as the Son and God as the Holy Spirit. It may be difficult for you to see, but I have confidence that you can do it if you put your mind to it. Good luck and may God bless you.
Ok.. I took it off and guess what? The trinity is still a pagan belief that has no place in the Bible.
Happy now?
Halleluyah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
04 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThese are two massive claims; especially the last one.
1) All of the disciples taught it.
2) If you do not [b]believe it you can not be saved.[/b]
Can you provide direct corroborative scriptural evidence for either one, or are you just going to carry on trolling?
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by divegeesterI will just keep on trolling, thank you.
These are two massive claims; especially the last one.
Can you provide direct corroborative scriptural evidence for either one, or are you just going to carry on trolling?
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
04 Sep 12
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYour ignorance knows no bounds, the King James version is a translation of a
Alrighty then. Get you a good English translation of the Bible, even the Old KJV will do. But do not look at the NWT. Start with the Gospel of John for it is the best one for understanding that the Trinity idea is taught. Then you can read the other Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, and if you like, you can get a good believer's bible commentary nd to it. Good luck and may God bless you.
Halleluyah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
translation, that being the Latin Vulgate, there could have been no more than a
handful of Greek manuscripts available to the translators and yet here you are
telling us that there has been no progress in translation since the middle ages, suck
this up fat boy,
A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern
Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in
the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible
and The New International Version, examined several New Testament passages in
which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he
compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked
for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World
Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the
translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most
of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal,
conservative translation".
please don't give any more advice on which translation is best, its independently
verified that the NWT is the most accurate, according to the abundance of Greek
manuscripts. Let me state it again,
the New world translation of the Holy scriptures, produced by the watchtower and
Bible tract society, is the most accurate English translation on the planet, you only
advocate the King James version because you like darkness rather than light and to
shroud yourself with with error rather than truth.
04 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn retrospect, I readily admit that the Bible does not explicitly state that the earth was enshrouded in heavy gases and water.
No the truth does not lie between two polarities. either it is true, or it is not. What I
stated was that the creation account is scientifically accurate and listed some ten
processes or so in chronological order. As the Bible does not concern itself with
details, merely the order, it seems self evident that the earth was enshrouded in
heav ...[text shortened]... e trinity is not explicitly taught, then fine, but he hasn't and therein lies the
difference.
Why were you claiming that it did then?