03 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieANSWER THE QUESTION, AS IT IS GERMANE.
the actual question is this,
Is Jesus or is he not part of the creation or what did Paul mean by first born OF all creation. This is my question which as yet you have failed to answer.
After this is answered then we can return to the term that Paul used for firstborn and why it may be relevant. As I stated before the term first-born occurs m ...[text shortened]... ed with regard to progeny.
your irrelevancies will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.
You're NOT getting away with your evasion crap with me, mister.
03 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou WILL answer this question.
the actual question is this,
Is Jesus or is he not part of the creation or what did Paul mean by first born OF all creation. This is my question which as yet you have failed to answer.
After this is answered then we can return to the term that Paul used for firstborn and why it may be relevant. As I stated before the term first-born occurs m ...[text shortened]... ed with regard to progeny.
your irrelevancies will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.
It is the ENTIRE point which you are trying to hide behind.
Suzianne said,
Perhaps YOU can explain for US, o translation master, how Paul came to use an inaccurate Greek word, then; "firstborn", instead of "first created" if that is, in fact, what he meant.
Apparently, a "translation master" would know of alternative meanings for the Greek word for "firstborn", and we can only guess you're not telling us. This points towards willful deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now answer the question. It is NOT irrelevant. The answer to this, answers YOUR question, but you'd rather just wish to go on ignoring it.
03 Feb 14
Originally posted by menace71But this doesn't demote Jesus to angel ranking.
Revelation 19:10 NASB
Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
there is no argument that men are not to worship angels
Manny
He was made human. This alone raises his rank above that of the angels.
03 Feb 14
Originally posted by menace71And thoughts like this are what led the originators of JW dogma to think similar. Don't make their mistake.
You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.
Manny
03 Feb 14
Originally posted by divegeesterBravo! Viva La Resistance!
Manny!
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame ...[text shortened]... it, Peter denied him for it and we are commanded to stand and proclaim it. Jesus Christ is Lord.
03 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat happened to "irrelevancies will be ignored"? It's suddenly not irrelevant when it seems to agree with you, is it?
perhaps you can comment on the ideas that Manfred cites and if we are to be accurate Peter denied being with Jesus, how you get from denying to be with Jesus or knowing him and the disciples to denying that Jesus is Lord you can perhaps explain for its not entirely apparent from the text.
03 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Give me a break. Stop with the half-truths and outrageous lies.
Then why isn't Gabriels name used here instead of Michaels?
Michael's name is NOT used in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
"... with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God..."
Who else can any intelligent being think this represents BUT Gabriel?
03 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Suziannethere is a series of question that you have evaded, failed to answer, answered with irrelevancy and time and again put up diversionary counter arguments in an act of deceitful subterfuge, until you answer those questions you have no credibility, for example,
Calling poignant arguments against your position irrelevant does not make them irrelevant. Clearly, you're just evading. AGAIN.
why does the Bible state that Jesus is OF the creation and you say that he is not?
why is the book of Isaiah irrelevant to Christians?
when you can answer these questions let us know, all other irrelevances will be ignored.
03 Feb 14
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWrong, wrong, WRONG!
there is a series of question that you have evaded, failed to answer, answered with irrelevancy and time and again put up diversionary counter arguments in an act of deceitful subterfuge, until you answer those questions you have no credibility, for example,
why does the Bible state that Jesus is OF the creation and you say that he is not?
why ...[text shortened]... ans?
when you can answer these questions let us know, all other irrelevances will be ignored.
I have answered these questions adequately enough for anyone who is not under the thrall of the WT corporation.
Your evasion tactics will not work on me. Answer the questions everyone else has put to YOU in these threads. Yes, all of them.
03 Feb 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Suzianneno you have not, you answered with irrelevant definitions, tell us again, why does the Bible state that Jesus is OF the creation and you say that he is not, you have not answered it. All irrelevant and unworthy comments will be ignored.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG!
I have answered these questions adequately enough for anyone who is not under the thrall of the WT corporation.
You evasion tactics will not work on me. Answer the questions everyone else has put to YOU in these threads. Yes, all of them.
03 Feb 14
3 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Incorrect.
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 ...[text shortened]... med his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.
There are, in fact, seven archangels.
Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Remiel and Saraqael are mentioned in the first book of Enoch. In fact, Lucifer was regarded as an archangel, at least until his forcible removal from Heaven at the hands of Michael.
Calling Michael the only archangel is another twisting of scripture that only your denomination follows, to adapt scripture to your dogma. It is a vanity of men that they would rather spend all the time and energy necessary to perverting scripture to their own dogma, rather than creating their dogma from the word of God.
I do, however, have to give you props for finally owning up to this.
Will you next finally admit to polytheism?
03 Feb 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAGAIN, they are only irrelevant TO YOU, because they disagree WITH YOU.
no you have not, you answered with irrelevant definitions, tell us again, why does the Bible state that Jesus is OF the creation and you say that he is not, you have not answered it. All irrelevant and unworthy comments will be ignored.
Stop being an ass.