The Trinity

[NWL]

You actually forgot part of it. This is actually what you wrote. I'll boldface something that you may not have noticed:



When you have blessings from Paul and the people who live in his house, normal people would assume that Paul lives in his own house. Perhaps you might have the occasional person here and there that might reserve that maybe Paul is renting his house to someone else, but it would take an odd duck indeed to look at that and say that it emphatically excludes Paul from his own home.

Now I will grant that people develop different styles of writing, and that the flow of introduction will depend on whether you are reading the Apostle John, Tom Clancy, or Danielle Steele. But we aren't reading Tom Clancy or Danielle Steele, we are reading John, and John (like many of the biblical authors) is known to employ parallel repetition for emphasis. Look here, just two verses down and still in the same phrase and breath

Without tryin to insult, you keep playing tactical stupidity.

I asked you directly "So are you're seriously saying that in the example I gave that the everyday person who read it would understand the the people who lived in the house (plurual) was Paul, and that James was also Paul, lets try and be honest when answering this, is that what you truly believe?". I quoted the entire analogy I gave, you then stated I quoted incorrectly and quoted my entire analogy along with reasoning. You then went on to explain how Paul could be part of paul house, I didnt ask whether Paul could be seen as part of his own house of course he could! Moreover I puprosley used the plurual "people" show that the "people" couldn't ONLY apply to Paul as you somehow only insist.

Again, you didn't answer the question, would an everyday reader understand Paul to be James in what I wrote. I ask you as a Christian not to lie but to give an honest answer to this.

Here is what I wrote again : "Rosenritter may you have blessings fromPaul and from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero"

Rev 1:6
(6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

To deny that John employs repetition for emphasis, using more than one form of address for the same being, would be to deny that "God" and "his Father" were one and the same. Are you willing to do that? Yes? No?

No because the langauge is not the same. Someone COULD conclude there are two people in being addressed, one as Jesus God and one as Jesus Father. However since the conext of the NT expleciity shows God is Jesus father, thus Rev 1:6 and like verses are viewed in light of these. There is nothing grammatically why Jesus "God" and "Father" are separate person, its the context that expresses they are the same person.

As stated this is NOT the case with Rev 1:1,4,5,8. Jesus is shown as separate from God throughout the book as can be seen in Rev 1:1, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him" and Rev 1:9, "I John..was on the island called Patʹmos for speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus", two scriptures you keep failing to include in the context of Rev 1:8 when referring to "the one coming" as God when compared to the "one coming" in Rev 1:4. So even if Rev 1:4,5 left out the modiferes context would still show that you are incorrect, since the grammar also denies that all the blessing were coming from the "one coming" in Rev 1:4,5 you have no point.

In verse 4, "the one which is, and which was, and which is to come" is alluded to, but not yet introduced or named. It does mention that he has seven Spirits before his throne.

In verse 5, we have grace and peace extended from Jesus Christ, with a long introduction that continues through verse 6 and 7. If you want to know who it is that "which is, and which was, and which is to come" you need to keep reading in the book. It will be revealed. If you want a clue who is being revealed in this book, it the "revelation of Jesus Christ" after all...

In verse 8, we are also introduced to "Alpha and Omega, beginning and the ending, saith the Lord" .. "which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." So if you are willing to employ A= B, B = C logic, you know that "him which is, and which was, and which is to come" is the Lord Almighty. So here's where your argument becomes inconsistent. The same logical connection that links "which is, and which was, and which is to come", that same A = B, B = C, therefore A = C logic, also declares Jesus as the same Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, within the next couple verses.

This reasoning denies your previous reasoning that the terms "seven spirits" and "Jesus Christ" were merely restatements of the title of the "the one coming". Your reasoning here also fails to address why Jesus is mentioned as separate from God in Rev 1:1 and Rev 1:9 but is somehow God mentioned in Revelation 1:8.

God isn't a name in itself. It's strength and authority, power and position. Same with "the Son" and "the Father" and "the Lamb" and "the Rock" - these are titles, not names.

Since you like examples for illustration, please allow me: "Greetings from Stewart, who will be coming to greet you, and from their loyal servants, and from James, first of his name, true heir to Scotland and England, protector of the realm, shining star and glory to Stewart."

If you were to say that James was not Stewart, you'd be utterly mistaken. James is of the house of Stewart, even even though he is usually called "James I of England" he is Stewart, "James Stewart." James is of Stewart and is Stewart, he receives his authority to rule by virtue of inheritance from Stewart. The rigid logic you've constructed would exclude James from Stewart.

Your argument here is ridiculous. God of course is NOT a name, but it is a title and is used as such throughout the Bible and in Rev 1:1. You're trying to impose the attributes of a title in place of the title simply to try and get out of a sticky situation. It doesn't work, again, coming from the person who said take scripture for what it says how you can't see that your attempting to twist scripture is beyond me.

The text doesn't exclude Jesus from being the one who was, and is, and is to come, your rigid mindset is what excludes it. The actual text defines Jesus to all of these unique identifiers.

You don't understand grammar, I've shown you how Jesus was shown as separate from "the one coming" by the grammar which you've chosen to ignore and not address, all you say is "they're titles restatements" without realising according to the grammar they simply cannot be.

I could get you to show me every instance of God in revelation and compare it to where it mentions Jesus, every time when they are mentioned together Jesus is always separate from God.

Rev 1:4 states that "the one coming" is the one who sits on the throne "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, Rev 5:6,7 then goes on to state that Jesus the lamb takes the scroll out of the hand of the one who sits on that throne, thus Jesus isn't the "the One who is and who was and who is coming" who sits on the throne.

(Revelation 5:6, 7) "..And I saw standing in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the elders a lamb that seemed to have been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, and the eyes mean the seven spirits of God that have been sent out into the whole earth. 7 At once he came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne.."

Who is the judge of the quick and the dead? Does it say "judges" or "judge?" How come Jesus is doing everything that you say that Jehovah is doing? Dear Lois, you still haven't figured out that who Clark looks like if he were to take off those glasses?

Again you fail to understand that the Father acts through his son in all things. Much like the Father created the world through Jesus and thus Jesus is talked about creating things even though the Father is the source of creation the Father judges the world through Jesus as shown in scripture.

(Acts 17:31) Because he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead.”

Thus the Father judges as does the son, likewise Jesus comes as instructed by the Father the A&O, thus the Father comes by means of Jesus.

In some context he is our father because he has created us, in other he is our brother as he has experienced this world as we have. In one aspect he is our judge, in another he is our intercessor, and in yet another he is our sacrifice and in yet one more instance he is our food.

Your mistake lies in forbidding God to fill more than one niche in our relationship. I have a daughter, and as such I am her father, but I will also be her friend and her brother in Christ. By your inflexible logic, I couldn't possibly be the same real person.

No, because as already shown the Father is the source of creation NOT Jesus, hence the reason why the Father is called the Father since Father implies he is the source of life. You can disregard this text that states Jesus WILL not be ashamed to call them brother in regards to the one conquering but that won't make you right rosenritter.

You're not reading very carefully. I didn't say he was the same high priest, I said it was ultimately the same being. "Priest" is a role, a position, not the person itself. Did you tell me whether Fog was the same as Sinder? No matter how you answer with a simple yes or no, I could show how context would demand the opposite reply.

How can he NOT be the same high priest if it says in the OT he was High priest forever, are you admitting that when it says forever it did not literally mean forever? I though the whole reason why you asserted Jesus was Melchizedek was because of the eternal language used in regards to Melchizedek. Again are you saying forever didn't literally mean forever?

You are really unfamiliar with how one can speak of being part of the team of a person, without calling themselves that person? "Trump is going to nuke Canada" and "we are special secret agents of the president, I warn you we are going to nuke Canada" would be inconsistent with Trump himself pressing the red button from his secret bat-cave? The agents aren't calling themselves Trump. There is only one Trump. "And Trump rained down fire from the sky upon Canada."

You never cease to amaze me, why create you're own analogy with different language when you have the perfect example to copy??? Let's rephrase it with the knowledge Trump is already going to nuke Canada

Trumps agents say "For we are going to destroy this place, because Trumps hate against Canada has indeed grown great before Trump, so that Trump sent us to destroy Canada”

In what world would anyone reading that understand that to mean anything other than the agents of trump were the ones who were going to destroy Canada?? No one would, again you are blatantly twisting a meaning out of the verse that is not there upon reading it plainly.

The no representative of God ever speaks as doing something that they know they aren't actually going to do because God is the real one behind the actions as this takes glory way from God. For example according to you Moses as directed by Gods spirit should be "part of a team" with God should he not

(Numbers 20:7-10) "..Then Jehovah said to Moses...speak to the crag before their eyes that it may give its water...So Moses took the rod from before Jehovah, just as He had commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron called the congregation together before the crag, and he said to them: “Hear, now, you rebels! Must we bring out water for you from this crag?..Jehovah later said to Moses and Aaron: “Because you did not show faith in me and sanctify me before the eyes of the people of Israel, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I will give them.”

Because Moses said that HE and Aaron were the ones who brought the water out of the crag and did not say it was by means of Jehovah God punished them. But according to you they were allowed to speak in that way because they were part of a team were they not!? No, your reasoning is NOT biblical and there isn't a single example of this ridiculous "working part of a team" notion, the bible actually contradicts such a thought.

I have trouble understanding your question. Yes, my analogy used a computer game, because it is an example of how one can exist outside of a created world and inside that created world within its rules at the same time. Circumstances would dictate how you revealed yourself, or even if it was by position or personality.

I was asking you to explain what you meant by this :"If you are the type that equates the Son and the Father because you understand his being, then it would." Equates the Father and son as what, one being?

OK, I will accept your definition of fact. It is a FACT that the scripture calls Jesus God, prophesies Jesus as God, and that Jesus calls himself God, the language itself is conducive to this.. You are one of the few tiny minority that argue against this where pretty much everyone else accepts this. This isn't an argument, it's a fact.

We agree on this, I've never denied any of this, the only point I make is to what type of God Jesus is. The bible mentions there is only one true God (John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6) but it also talks about other who are rightly called Gods/gods. And again the evidence of the majority argument is hardly an argument, it proves nothing, according to the bible it is the minority of Christians who are saved in favour of the majority ((Matthew 7:13,21).

Now if you want to continue to argue against known fact, please go ahead. Now let's go back to Psalm 2. You claim that because David wrote the psalm, that "the LORD hath said unto me" means David? It seems to me that you don't understand how prophesies are written. Authors often write for people besides themselves: that is a fact.

They were Davids own words, Jesus himself admitted the language style relates to David, which I'll soon show according to writing style.

Acts 4:24,25 has the apostles calling David the speaker in Psalms 2 , "and who said by holy spirit by the mouth of our forefather David, your servant: ‘Why did nations become agitated and peoples meditate on empty things?" you attribute to them simply saying David was the one "speaking the prophecy" but the sayings aren't about him. But notice how Jesus uses the same language in regards to David speaking, and then goes onto explain that the words David said by means of the spirit were regarding David himself.

(Mark 12:35-37) "..However, as Jesus continued teaching in the temple, he said: “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is David’s son? 36 By the holy spirit, David himself said[/U], ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him Lord, so how can it be that he is his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with pleasure.."

Jesus states that what is said by David under inspiration are David actual words regarding himself. You are correct that prophecies can be regarding things besdie themelves but many times, including the one regarding David are not. If you were to study Isa 7:14: 8:10,11 compared to Matt 1:23 you'd see yet another example.

Likewise I say to you, Psalm 2 was written by the prophet David, and it speaks not of himself, but of Jesus. Which "day" hath the Lord "begotten" David? We are told that Jesus is the only begotten son of the LORD (John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, 1 John 4:9). Was David given the "uttermost parts of the earth" as a possession? David is not the Son of God.

I've never suggested David is the son of God, I've simply stated he prefigured Jesus.

Proved. As above. The LORD has only one begotten son. But you've placed the burden of proof wrong. Paul applies this to Jesus. Nowhere does the scripture show that this psalm is to be applied to David. The burden of proof really belongs in your court.

No you didn't, I clearly said show me how the things said regarding Christ compared to David that don't relate, when I said this I clearly stated I was asking in reference to Psalms 2, not literally everything said of Christ compared to David.

The TRUE declaration of Independence is not the original copy or subsequent copies, it's the words therein.

Rosenritter you're yet playing the tactical stupidity game. Answer the question how I asking them. If you want to add or expand or do not think I've asked and honset question please state so after answering the questions. I've simplified the questions for you.

Is a copy of the declaration of independence the first initial written declaration of Independence? My question is not about the contents but "manuscript hard copies"

If I was to magically make another human who was the exact image of you rosenwritter, even your thought processes were the same, if I then killed him in front of you, did I kill you or the image I made of you?[/QUOTE]

By definition, impossible to tell and irrelevant. The closest analogy to your scenario is the Star Trek transporter, which does create copies and then destroys one of the two. If they are really identical like in your picture, then it's impossible to tell them apart.

I asked the question directly to you rosenritter to avoid the argument you're presenting, you certainly know the difference between yourself and someone who is an image of, so again answer the question.

If I magically made a image of you, who was exactly the same as you, you watched me made him, If I then killed him, have I killed you, the person who just saw me kill your image or have I killed your image?

The signet is the symbol of something greater than the ring, not the ring. It doesn't matter whether this image is found in metal or in wax. The wax copy is not the image of the metal ring. Your analogy breaks because both items are images of the same thing.

My example is the exact reasons why signets rings were made. The wax impression is NOT the symbol that left the impression, as you mentioned. I wasn't talking about what the representation means so don't know why you mentioned mentioned it being greater than it, moreover, saying that the representation is greater than what its an impression of is to say Jesus is greater than what he is a representation of, namely God, so you're wrong since that is not the case.

He is God. "My glory I will not share with another" he says. And in another place, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." If it is as you say, then Jesus not only took the name of the LORD in vain, he took the name of the LORD for HIMSELF. If it is as you say, Jesus was not guiltless

Then is the statement that Jesus is the "image of God" incorrect? Jesus is either God or the "image" of that God, you can't have two statements that oppose each other that are both true . Again, Is Jesus the "image" of God or God according to Col 1:15?

 

[NWL]

Your entire argument above depends that God is sharing his name and glory with another, and that Jesus and John and Paul are all speaking in ways to confuse the two of them together, when the "true believers" should know to keep them separate. Have you not read, where he says:

My argument does not rely on that, nor do I believe God shares his glory in the sense of loosing glory to another. Scripture makes it clear that others that Gods representatives share his glory since they are coming by the decree of God. Other scriptures show Humans reflect Gods glory and Gods temple having Gods glory. Would it not be fitting for Jesus who is Gods mirror image, to thus reflect Gods glory, this certainly wouldn't be retracting anything from God, since as Phil 2:11 says that Jesus GIVES that glory back to God the Father! Again and again Scriptures tell us things are through(dia) Jesus but For the Father (Phil 1:11).

An angel shared Gods glory - "..Suddenly Gods angel stood before them, and the Lords glory gleamed around them, and they became very fearful.." (Luke 2:9)
Followers of Christ reflect Gods glory - (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18) "..Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, exactly as it is done by Jehovah the Spirit.."

New Jerusalem in Heaven has Gods glory - (Revelation 21:10, 11) "..he showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God 11 and having the glory of God.."

Isa 48:11
(11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Context of scripture can only be stretched as far as the surrounding context permit, every time scripture talks about God not sharing his glory its ALWAYS in regards to him not sharing his glory with false Gods of the surrounding nations, read the accounts and this will be cleary evident. In Isa 48:11 it sheds some light that its relevant to false God from the text alone, God says "for how should my name be polluted?", in regards to his glory going to a false god(s) since only a false god could pollute Gods name. Now think, when God ordained for his angel to go and tell Josephs of the coming messiah was Gods name defiled because the Angel had Jehovah's glory? No, why, because God himself commanded it so that Jesus could further glorify God name as the coming messiah.

And does it not say that Jesus created the heavens and the earth?

Isa 42:5-8
(5) Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
(6) I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
(7) To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
(8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Does this apply? Who created all things? Jesus did.

Col 1:15-16
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Jesus was the agent through whom God the Father created the earth. I've shown you this verse but in regards a different point, but notice what Hebrews 1:1 states as to who the source of creation is and who he created the world through as does 1 Cor 8:6:

(Hebrews 1:1, 2) "..God... Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.."

(1 Cor 8:6) "..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.."

So as clearly shown, the Father created the universe through Jesus Christ, thus the verses that show Jesus created the world should be viewed in light of these, that he was the passive agent God used.

All of your arguments require that we first assume what you seek to prove, and read everything beneath that unyielding assumption. Then when there are statements that plain out contradict or deny your assumption, you're expending lots of energy to evade the force of those. It's so much easier just to accept what it says as we are spoken to. Jesus created all things, Jesus is the LORD, there is one LORD, his glory is not shared with another.

Mat 16:27
(27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Maybe the right answer is the easy answer. Maybe the easy answer is easy because it's right.

Without trying to sound proud as it is not my intention, you yourself assume that my arguments require me to assume what I seek to prove, since, you do not know the scriptures as I do. What you believe are my assumptions are in fact scriptural facts, as Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 show.

 

[NWL]

One flaw in your argument there is that regardless of the underlying word used, the angels don't want anyone even bending the knee to them. The second flaw is that while you argue that "proskuneo" could mean "not exactly worship" it is also used in the sense of "worship" and to me, at least, this certainly seems to be the rule, rather than the exception. We have One Lord and One King of Kings, and as such you wouldn't "bend the knee" to anyone but that One. We are told that the One is Jesus.

Unless you are going to claim that there is a King of King of Kings, this the end of the line of this reverence ends once it reaches Jesus.

That is an assumption, moreover Jesus is no Angel, he is no doubt a Spirit person though. The statements the angel made in Revelation 22 applies to that angel, you cannot deduce from what he said that his words apply to all spirit creatures, to claim such a thing would be adding to scripture.

"I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing me these things. 9 But he tells me: “Be careful! Do not do that! I am only a fellow slave of you and of your brothers the prophets and of those observing the words of this scroll. Worship God.”

As you can see the angel didn't say anywhere state his words were directed to all angels, he was speaking for himself. No doubt other spirits on the same level as that angel would not expect worship either but to say that it could not apply to a spirit who God himself commanded every knee bend to would be denying scripture since that is excalt what he said in Hebrews 1:6.

In short, if the bible plainly stated "God said for all the angels/spirits to bend the knee to Jesus the live giving spirit" Rev 22:8-9 wouldn't contradict that statement. Likewise since the Bible states that all knees bend to Jesus, with Jesus being a spirit himself as shown in other scripture, Rev 22:8-9 doesn't negate such an understanding.

 

[Rosenritter]

Sorry to be the one to tell you but man has really done a good job for their boss Satan with the word of God. However the Law was not changed or altered until the RCC tried to change it in the fourth century. They changed the Sabbath for the day of the Sun God. They thought that they were smarter than their creator.

1. Is that a "yes, God was unable to preserve his words until all be fulfilled" then?
2. The Roman church did not change the Sabbath, for multiple reasons. One of which they lack jurisdiction. Regardless, if you are concerned about Sabbaths, look to he who has jurisdiction over the Sabbath as to which sabbaths he wants you to observe.

Who is the LORD of the Sabbath?

Exo 20:10-11
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Mat 12:8
(8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Joh 1:3
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:15-16
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

According to the original commandment, the LORD of the Sabbath is the creator of heaven and earth. Jesus is the creator of heaven and earth. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus is the LORD of the Sabbath, the creator of heaven and earth.

By the way, as to Sabbaths: Jesus says that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and it was acceptable for his disciples to profane the Sabbath day in service of him. What does that suggest? He has the power to declare what is acceptable or not on the Sabbath, because he made and instituted the Sabbath. The creator is greater than his creation.

Mat 12:2-8
(2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
(3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
(5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
(6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
(7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

 

[Rosenritter]

Without tryin to insult, you keep playing tactical stupidity.

I don't play tactical stupidity. Try not to make the mistake of writing off what you do not yet understand as stupidity. By the way, we need to shorten these replies. If each of us responds with more words than the other, it will become unreadable.

I asked you directly "So are you're seriously saying that in the example I gave that the everyday person who read it would understand the the people who lived in the house (plurual) was Paul, and that James was also Paul, lets try and be honest when answering this, is that what you truly believe?". I quoted the entire analogy I gave, you then stated I quoted incorrectly and quoted my entire analogy along with reasoning. You then went on to explain how Paul could be part of paul house, I didnt ask whether Paul could be seen as part of his own house of course he could! Moreover I puprosley used the plurual "people" show that the "people" couldn't ONLY apply to Paul as you somehow only insist.

I answered in part because of trying to decrease words. Paul is Paul, the people who live in the house includes Paul, there may or may not be anyone else other than Paul included in the people in the house, and as you phrased it James seemed like a different person. You're not proving your point here.

Spoiler

Here is what I wrote again : "Rosenritter may you have blessings fromPaul and from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero"

No because the langauge is not the same. Someone COULD conclude there are two people in being addressed, one as Jesus God and one as Jesus Father. However since the conext of the NT expleciity shows God is Jesus father, thus Rev 1:6 and like verses are viewed in light of these. There is nothing grammatically why Jesus "God" and "Father" are separate person, its the context that expresses they are the same person.

No, if I were to argue as you, I would insist that the passage is proof that God and the Father are different people, as they are clearly listed separately from each other. I would also ignore context from within two verses before or after, and place my assumed "proof" that "God and the Father are two different people" as the lens which must reinterpret all other scripture.

As stated this is NOT the case with Rev 1:1,4,5,8. Jesus is shown as separate from God throughout the book as can be seen in Rev 1:1, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him" and Rev 1:9, "I John..was on the island called Patʹmos for speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus", two scriptures you keep failing to include in the context of Rev 1:8 when referring to "the one coming" as God when compared to the "one coming" in Rev 1:4. So even if Rev 1:4,5 left out the modiferes context would still show that you are incorrect, since the grammar also denies that all the blessing were coming from the "one coming" in Rev 1:4,5 you have no point.

There are not two ones coming. The context should make this plainly evident. It is not "they are coming" or "we are coming" but "the one who is coming." The ONE who is coming. One, not two, one. If two special persons were coming, it wouldn't use an identification of one.

This reasoning denies your previous reasoning that the terms "seven spirits" and "Jesus Christ" were merely restatements of the title of the "the one coming". Your reasoning here also fails to address why Jesus is mentioned as separate from God in Rev 1:1 and Rev 1:9 but is somehow God mentioned in Revelation 1:8.

In your haste to provoke the answer you had anticipated answering, maybe you didn't notice that I never said "seven spirits" were restatements of "the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come." Stay focused.

You don't understand grammar, I've shown you how Jesus was shown as separate from "the one coming" by the grammar which you've chosen to ignore and not address, all you say is "they're titles restatements" without realising according to the grammar they simply cannot be.

No trash talk please? Let's be better than that. In the face of the statements of sheer equivalence, there is nothing wrong grammatically. It may not be the way YOU speak, but it is allowed to be the way John or God speaks.

I could get you to show me every instance of God in revelation and compare it to where it mentions Jesus, every time when they are mentioned together Jesus is always separate from God.

1. Revelation 1:9, clearly parallel "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
2. Revelation 12:17, also parallel, "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
3. Revelation 14:12, parallel, "they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
4. Revelation 20:4, parallel, "for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God"

The problem with your challenge is that you deny that God is God when it hurts your argument. Is Alpha and Omega God? If I understand your argument correctly, it is that whenever someone says "I" that it is like a round-robin chorus of people popping in and out, so when you discard every other means of identification other than name (like the unique titles in Isaiah, and so forth) and then you discard the names, there is nothing that could ever be said that could ever prove anything by your standard.

Revelation 22:16, SHEER EQUIVALENCE. "I come quickly; and my reward is with me (v 12) I am Alpha and Omega.... (v 13) I Jesus (v 16)" ... and who is it that John understands the speaker to have been? Who is coming? "Even so, come, Lord Jesus (v 20)" ... or do you now argue that verse 12 is a different speaker than verse 13, because the word "I" was used?

Rev 1:4 states that "the one coming" is the one who sits on the throne "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, Rev 5:6,7 then goes on to state that Jesus the lamb takes the scroll out of the hand of the one who sits on that throne, thus Jesus isn't the "the One who is and who was and who is coming" who sits on the throne.

... you deny that Jesus was?
... you deny that Jesus is?
... you deny that Jesus is coming?
... or you are arguing that there are more than one "who was, and is, and is to come?" that you can tag team in and out in a grand game of keep-away?

Thus the Father judges as does the son, likewise Jesus comes as instructed by the Father the A&O, thus the Father comes by means of Jesus.

TWO judges? Surely you understand the pickle this creates. You cannot have more than one judge of the living and the dead. The U.S. Supreme Court may use a council and vote against each other, but God does not share his glory with another. Besides, Jesus says there is one judge, not two judges.

John 12:48 KJV
(48) He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Did you notice that Jesus speaks of himself in the third person above? It's important that you acknowledge this. Your position seems to require that God and Jesus are not allowed to speak of themselves in the third person...

2 Timothy 4:1 KJV
(1) I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Compare with Acts 10:42, "Jesus" is the judge of the quick and the dead, Hebrews 12:23, yet Paul says "God the Judge of all." You do not have more than one judge, there is one judge, any presumption of a panel of judges is preposterous. God does not judge "through" a proxy, he doesn't hire this duty out.

John 5:22 KJV
(22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

No, because as already shown the Father is the source of creation NOT Jesus, hence the reason why the Father is called the Father since Father implies he is the source of life. You can disregard this text that states Jesus WILL not be ashamed to call them brother in regards to the one conquering but that won't make you right rosenritter.

False. You have alleged that "the Father" is the source of creation NOT Jesus. Not shown. Hopefully you understand the difference between the concepts of "allege" and "shown." My bible says that Jesus is the source of all creation. It says that flat-out.

John 1:3 KJV
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Notice that it does not say "excepting that he was made himself."

How can he NOT be the same high priest if it says in the OT he was High priest forever, are you admitting that when it says forever it did not literally mean forever? I though the whole reason why you asserted Jesus was Melchizedek was because of the eternal language used in regards to Melchizedek. Again are you saying forever didn't literally mean forever?

The priesthood is different. I have fought hand to hand with clubs and shields, and I have fought with scripture and words. The one warrior (of clubs and shields) that deals with one type of situation is not appropriate for the other type of situation. The rules of the game being changed, a different warrior was required. I was the person of each warrior in this example. Yet each warrior is not the same type of warrior. If you understand the means of honest argument, then stop chasing a failed point. You would need for there to be no interpretation other than your own to justify any dogmatic persistence here. You don't have that.

You never cease to amaze me, why create you're own analogy with different language when you have the perfect example to copy??? Let's rephrase it ....

Spoiler

with the knowledge Trump is already going to nuke Canada

Trumps agents say "For we are going to destroy this place, because Trumps hate against Canada has indeed grown great before Trump, so that Trump sent us to destroy Canada”

In what world would anyone reading that understand that to mean anything other than the agents of trump were the ones who were going to destroy Canada?? No one would, again you are blatantly twisting a meaning out of the verse that is not there upon reading it plainly.

No, you are actually reaching very hard and far in an attempt to say that the angels that came to Lot in Sodom called themselves "the LORD" (Jehovah) and it's becoming a bit absurd. It says "The LORD" spoke to Abraham. It does not say "the LORD" spoke to Lot. Take 100 people who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, keep other Jehovah's Witnesses out of the room to avoid prompting or harassment, have them read that passage. At least ninety-nine are not going to say that the angels called themselves Jehovah. I allow for perhaps one because there's always an oddball for every survey.

I was asking you to explain what you meant by this :"If you are the type that equates the Son and the Father because you understand his being, then it would." Equates the Father and son as what, one being?

I didn't say I equated the Son and the Father. Those are abstract references used for specific meaning. If you mean the being behind the Son and the being behind the Father, then yes, I would say they are ultimately the same being.

We agree on this, I've never denied any of this, the only point I make is to what type of God Jesus is.

Malachi 2:10 KJV
(10) Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Mark 12:32 KJV
(32) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Captain America, "There is only One God."

The bible mentions there is only one true God (John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6) but it also talks about other who are rightly called Gods/gods. And again the evidence of the majority argument is hardly an argument, it proves nothing, according to the bible it is the minority of Christians who are saved in favour of the majority ((Matthew 7:13,21).

Jesus speaks of God judging among the gods. There are two types here. God, and the gods being judged. Which one is Jesus? Jesus is not "a god" ... "that shall die like men." Jesus is not "the god of this world." Nor is he a "god of wood or stone." Nor is he "gods ascending out of the earth" (1 Samuel 28:13). In the context that we are speaking, there is only ONE GOD.

John 20:28 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Rosenritter you're yet playing the tactical stupidity game. Answer the question how I asking them. If you want to add or expand or do not think I've asked and honset question please state so after answering the questions. I've simplified the questions for you.

Your argument is that "Jesus is God" but "there is more than one God." I say, "There's only One God, Ma'am"

Is a copy of the declaration of independence the first initial written declaration of Independence? My question is not about the contents but "manuscript hard copies"

You are concerned about hard copies? How many different Jesus's were there then?

1. On the cross.
2. One in the garden after his resurrection.
3. Another time when he walked with them on the road to Emmaeus
4. Another one when he appeared in the midst of them after that
5. Yet another time when Peter swam out to him from the boat...

Hard copies aren't what determines the essence of a person. If you think it's about form, then God in heaven is obviously different than Jesus on earth, but by the same factor you have at least five Jesus's. God isn't defined by FORM.

If I was to magically make another human who was the exact image of you rosenwritter, even your thought processes were the same, if I then killed him in front of you, did I kill you or the image I made of you?

When you ask a question, you should be prepared for the answer. The answer is it is impossible for me to tell which one is the "original" and which one is the "copy." Thoughts and memories are the same in your example. Each Rosenritter remembers there being just one before, and then sees another, and sees one blown up. Rosenritter, being myself in this case, understands the dilemma of not knowing for sure which was original, but also understands that it's an absurd thing to wonder about after the fact, that it doesn't make any difference, and now takes that disruptor beam and shoots you before you can try to kill me again.

If I magically made a image of you, who was exactly the same as you, you watched me made him, If I then killed him, have I killed you, the person who just saw me kill your image or have I killed your image?

Impossible to tell. I shoot you rather than falling into a Marvel Comics style fugue about "am I a clone? I'll go sulk now."

Then is the statement that Jesus is the "image of God" incorrect? Jesus is either God or the "image" of that God, you can't have two statements that oppose each other that are both true . Again, Is Jesus the "image" of God or God according to Col 1:15?

If I were to appear before you in the flesh, I would be the image of the invisible Rosenritter. Yes, and I acknowledge that there is more than what you merely perceive. I would have blood and internal organs and all that beyond the image. You know that the statement in Col 1:15 isn't about attempting to limit or differentiate Jesus from God, but rather the opposite.

Colossians 1:15-17 KJV
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

"As the Jews term Jehovah בכורו של עולם becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things; so Christ is here termed.."

Spoiler

The first-born of every creature - I suppose this phrase to mean the same as that, Phi_2:9 : God hath given him a name which is above every name; he is as man at the head of all the creation of God; nor can he with any propriety be considered as a creature, having himself created all things, and existed before any thing was made. If it be said that God created him first, and that he, by a delegated power from God, created all things, this is most flatly contradicted by the apostle’s reasoning in the 16th and 17th verses. As the Jews term Jehovah בכורו של עולם becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things; (see Wolfius in loc.) so Christ is here termed, and the words which follow in the 16th and 17th verses are the proof of this. The phraseology is Jewish; and as they apply it to the supreme Being merely to denote his eternal pre-existence, and to point him out as the cause of all things; it is most evident that St. Paul uses it in the same way, and illustrates his meaning in the following words, which would be absolutely absurd if we could suppose that by the former he intended to convey any idea of the inferiority of Jesus Christ.

from Clarke's Commentary of the bible, Col 1:15

"... [it] would be absolutely absurd if we could suppose that by the former he intended to convey any idea of the inferiority of Jesus Christ."

 

[Rosenritter]

That is an assumption, moreover Jesus is no Angel, he is no doubt a Spirit person though. The statements the angel made in Revelation 22 applies to that angel, you cannot deduce from what he said that his words apply to all spirit creatures, to claim such a thing would be adding to scripture.

But you JUST SAID that you believed that Jesus is the Archangel Michael!

From your own post two days ago, 9346

And no the JW's weren't wrong, I believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel, I haven't yet stated in our conversations that I believe this. Does the fact that I haven't mentioned something mean that I don't believe it? Nope...

I have no need to contradict you further, you are contradicting yourself.

 

[God's Truth]

I don't play tactical stupidity. Try not to make the mistake of writing off what you do not yet understand as stupidity. By the way, we need to shorten these replies. If each of us responds with more words than the other, it will become unreadable.



I answered in part because of trying to decrease words. Paul is Paul, the people who live in the house includes Paul, there may or may not be anyone else other than Paul included in the people in the house, and as you phrased it James seemed like a different person. You're not proving your point here.

Spoiler

No, if I were to argue as you, I would insist that the passage is proof that God and the Father are different people, as they are clearly listed separately from each other. I would also ignore context from within two verses before or after, and place my assumed "proof" that "God and the Father are two different people" as the lens which must reinterpret all other scripture.



There are not two ones coming. The context should make this plainly evident. It is not "they are coming" or "we are coming" but "the one who is coming." The ONE who is coming. One, not two, one. If two special persons were coming, it wouldn't use an identification of one.



In your haste to provoke the answer you had anticipated answering, maybe you didn't notice that I never said "seven spirits" were restatements of "the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come." Stay focused.



No trash talk please? Let's be better than that. In the face of the statements of sheer equivalence, there is nothing wrong grammatically. It may not be the way YOU speak, but it is allowed to be the way John or God speaks.



1. Revelation 1:9, clearly parallel "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
2. Revelation 12:17, also parallel, "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
3. Revelation 14:12, parallel, "they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
4. Revelation 20:4, parallel, "for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God"

The problem with your challenge is that you deny that God is God when it hurts your argument. Is Alpha and Omega God? If I understand your argument correctly, it is that whenever someone says "I" that it is like a round-robin chorus of people popping in and out, so when you discard every other means of identification other than name (like the unique titles in Isaiah, and so forth) and then you discard the names, there is nothing that could ever be said that could ever prove anything by your standard.

Revelation 22:16, SHEER EQUIVALENCE. "I come quickly; and my reward is with me (v 12) I am Alpha and Omega.... (v 13) I Jesus (v 16)" ... and who is it that John understands the speaker to have been? Who is coming? "Even so, come, Lord Jesus (v 20)" ... or do you now argue that verse 12 is a different speaker than verse 13, because the word "I" was used?



... you deny that Jesus was?
... you deny that Jesus is?
... you deny that Jesus is coming?
... or you are arguing that there are more than one "who was, and is, and is to come?" that you can tag team in and out in a grand game of keep-away?



TWO judges? Surely you understand the pickle this creates. You cannot have more than one judge of the living and the dead. The U.S. Supreme Court may use a council and vote against each other, but God does not share his glory with another. Besides, Jesus says there is one judge, not two judges.

John 12:48 KJV
(48) He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Did you notice that Jesus speaks of himself in the third person above? It's important that you acknowledge this. Your position seems to require that God and Jesus are not allowed to speak of themselves in the third person...

2 Timothy 4:1 KJV
(1) I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Compare with Acts 10:42, "Jesus" is the judge of the quick and the dead, Hebrews 12:23, yet Paul says "God the Judge of all." You do not have more than one judge, there is one judge, any presumption of a panel of judges is preposterous. God does not judge "through" a proxy, he doesn't hire this duty out.

John 5:22 KJV
(22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:



False. You have alleged that "the Father" is the source of creation NOT Jesus. Not shown. Hopefully you understand the difference between the concepts of "allege" and "shown." My bible says that Jesus is the source of all creation. It says that flat-out.

John 1:3 KJV
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Notice that it does not say "excepting that he was made himself."



The priesthood is different. I have fought hand to hand with clubs and shields, and I have fought with scripture and words. The one warrior (of clubs and shields) that deals with one type of situation is not appropriate for the other type of situation. The rules of the game being changed, a different warrior was required. I was the person of each warrior in this example. Yet each warrior is not the same type of warrior. If you understand the means of honest argument, then stop chasing a failed point. You would need for there to be no interpretation other than your own to justify any dogmatic persistence here. You don't have that.



No, you are actually reaching very hard and far in an attempt to say that the angels that came to Lot in Sodom called themselves "the LORD" (Jehovah) and it's becoming a bit absurd. It says "The LORD" spoke to Abraham. It does not say "the LORD" spoke to Lot. Take 100 people who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, keep other Jehovah's Witnesses out of the room to avoid prompting or harassment, have them read that passage. At least ninety-nine are not going to say that the angels called themselves Jehovah. I allow for perhaps one because there's always an oddball for every survey.



I didn't say I equated the Son and the Father. Those are abstract references used for specific meaning. If you mean the being behind the Son and the being behind the Father, then yes, I would say they are ultimately the same being.



Malachi 2:10 KJV
(10) Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Mark 12:32 KJV
(32) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Captain America, "There is only One God."

Jesus speaks of God judging among the gods. There are two types here. God, and the gods being judged. Which one is Jesus? Jesus is not "a god" ... "that shall die like men." Jesus is not "the god of this world." Nor is he a "god of wood or stone." Nor is he "gods ascending out of the earth" (1 Samuel 28:13). In the context that we are speaking, there is only ONE GOD.

John 20:28 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.



Your argument is that "Jesus is God" but "there is more than one God." I say, "There's only One God, Ma'am"



You are concerned about hard copies? How many different Jesus's were there then?

1. On the cross.
2. One in the garden after his resurrection.
3. Another time when he walked with them on the road to Emmaeus
4. Another one when he appeared in the midst of them after that
5. Yet another time when Peter swam out to him from the boat...

Hard copies aren't what determines the essence of a person. If you think it's about form, then God in heaven is obviously different than Jesus on earth, but by the same factor you have at least five Jesus's. God isn't defined by FORM.



When you ask a question, you should be prepared for the answer. The answer is it is impossible for me to tell which one is the "original" and which one is the "copy." Thoughts and memories are the same in your example. Each Rosenritter remembers there being just one before, and then sees another, and sees one blown up. Rosenritter, being myself in this case, understands the dilemma of not knowing for sure which was original, but also understands that it's an absurd thing to wonder about after the fact, that it doesn't make any difference, and now takes that disruptor beam and shoots you before you can try to kill me again.



Impossible to tell. I shoot you rather than falling into a Marvel Comics style fugue about "am I a clone? I'll go sulk now."


If I were to appear before you in the flesh, I would be the image of the invisible Rosenritter. Yes, and I acknowledge that there is more than what you merely perceive. I would have blood and internal organs and all that beyond the image. You know that the statement in Col 1:15 isn't about attempting to limit or differentiate Jesus from God, but rather the opposite.

Colossians 1:15-17 KJV
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

"As the Jews term Jehovah בכורו של עולם becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things; so Christ is here termed.."

Spoiler

The first-born of every creature - I suppose this phrase to mean the same as that, Phi_2:9 : God hath given him a name which is above every name; he is as man at the head of all the creation of God; nor can he with any propriety be considered as a creature, having himself created all things, and existed before any thing was made. If it be said that God created him first, and that he, by a delegated power from God, created all things, this is most flatly contradicted by the apostle’s reasoning in the 16th and 17th verses. As the Jews term Jehovah בכורו של עולם becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things; (see Wolfius in loc.) so Christ is here termed, and the words which follow in the 16th and 17th verses are the proof of this. The phraseology is Jewish; and as they apply it to the supreme Being merely to denote his eternal pre-existence, and to point him out as the cause of all things; it is most evident that St. Paul uses it in the same way, and illustrates his meaning in the following words, which would be absolutely absurd if we could suppose that by the former he intended to convey any idea of the inferiority of Jesus Christ.

from Clarke's Commentary of the bible, Col 1:15

"... [it] would be absolutely absurd if we could suppose that by the former he intended to convey any idea of the inferiority of Jesus Christ."

Are you sure you are not EvilEye? You got the long posts going on, the insults, and the ignorant comical pictures.

I think an inspection is in order, or a friendship match up.

 

[Rosenritter]

Are you sure you are not EvilEye? You got the long posts going on, the insults, and the ignorant comical pictures.

I think an inspection is in order, or a friendship match up.

I like Captain America! But I didn't think I was insulting NWL. Rebuking and perhaps a light bit of mocking, but insults cross a different line of rudeness for its own sake.

 

[God's Truth]

I like Captain America! But I didn't think I was insulting NWL. Rebuking and perhaps a light bit of mocking, but insults cross a different line of rudeness for its own sake.

I wasn't speaking about you insulting only NWL.

Are you EvilEye?

 

[Rosenritter]

That is an assumption, moreover Jesus is no Angel, he is no doubt a Spirit person though. The statements the angel made in Revelation 22 applies to that angel, you cannot deduce from what he said that his words apply to all spirit creatures, to claim such a thing would be adding to scripture.

And no the JW's weren't wrong, I believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel, I haven't yet stated in our conversations that I believe this. Does the fact that I haven't mentioned something mean that I don't believe it? Nope...

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/


Jesus cannot be an archangel by definition

Archangel. God’s Word refers to Michael “the archangel.” (Jude 9) This term means “chief angel.” Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term “archangel” occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural.

The scripture says that the Word was God, and that the Word created all things, and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3) and the conclusion of John's gospel is summed in Thomas's confession of Jesus as "my Lord and my God." Jesus is called the creator, angels are called created things (Hebrews 1:7, 12:9).

It should be self-evidence that a "chief angel" is indeed an "angel." When the JW statement says that "archangel" only occurs in the singular, it neglected to mention that it is using a pool of only two instances (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and Jude 1:9 "Michael the archangel.")

In the first case, claiming that the word "the" means there is only one archangel in existence would also require that there is only one trumpet in existence. In the second case, attempting to apply "Michael the archangel" to mean there could only be one archangel, would be akin to using "Jeremy the prophet" (Matthew 2:17, 27:9) to say there is only one prophet. Although we are not told how many archangels there might be, saying that there must only be one is groundless speculation.


A King does not trumpet his own entrance

Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV
(16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


A conqueror does not have to issue his own shout or blast his own trumpet. When Israel surrounded Jericho, it was not the "Captain of the Lord of Hosts" that issued the blast that felled the walls, but the congregation of Israel. Heralds go before the returning king to announce his entry. If the trumpet sounds and the archangel himself introduces the returning King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, you can be guaranteed that the archangel is subservient to He whom is returning.

However, if we were to accept the JW argument above, that notes that the return of Jesus is announced with the voice of the archangel, then by the same logic, as he is also announced with the trump of God, we must also presume that Jesus is a trumpet.

Michael has angels, Jesus has angels, God has angels

The Bible states that “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon . . . and its angels.” (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels.

This argument above seems to have forgotten that God also has command of the faithful angels. Psalm 103:20, "Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, and do his commandments, hearkening the voice of his word." One of God's titles is "Lord of Hosts" meaning that he commands the armies of heaven, the faithful angels. The JW argument above would also require that Michael the Archangel be the same as the LORD of Hosts.

...

The JW official website only had those two categories of arguments. There's only three places in scripture where Michael is named: Daniel, Jude, and Revelation. What they didn't mention destroys their own arguments.

Michael is not a unique class of being

Daniel 10:13 KJV
(13) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Whereas the JW site above argued that because Michael was "the archangel" thus there must only be one archangel, the passage in Daniel refers to Michael as simply "one of the chief princes" indicating that he is one of a category of many.

Jesus rebuked the devil, whereas Michael the archangel dared not

Jude 1:9 KJV
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Contrast this with Jesus, who openly rebuked the devil, and never with a meek "the Lord rebuke thee."

Matthew 4:10-11 KJV
(10) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(11) Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Matthew 17:17-19 KJV
(17) Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
(18) And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
(19) Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

...

There's only three spots in scripture where Michael is mentioned. None of them give evidence that Jesus is Michael, or an archangel, and some of these very same spots testify against it.

Hebrews 1:4-8 KJV
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

It should be self evident that Jesus is no angel, be it cherub, archangel, or otherwise. How many more times does Paul need to repeat himself to tell us that Jesus is not an angel?

 

[Bright Raven]

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/


Jesus cannot be an archangel by definition



The scripture says that the Word was God, and that the Word created all things, and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3) and the conclusion of John's gospel is summed in Thomas's confession of Jesus as "my Lord and my God." Jesus is called the creator, angels are called created things (Hebrews 1:7, 12:9).

It should be self-evidence that a "chief angel" is indeed an "angel." When the JW statement says that "archangel" only occurs in the singular, it neglected to mention that it is using a pool of only two instances (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and Jude 1:9 "Michael the archangel.")

In the first case, claiming that the word "the" means there is only one archangel in existence would also require that there is only one trumpet in existence. In the second case, attempting to apply "Michael the archangel" to mean there could only be one archangel, would be akin to using "Jeremy the prophet" (Matthew 2:17, 27:9) to say there is only one prophet. Although we are not told how many archangels there might be, saying that there must only be one is groundless speculation.


A King does not trumpet his own entrance



1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV
(16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


A conqueror does not have to issue his own shout or blast his own trumpet. When Israel surrounded Jericho, it was not the "Captain of the Lord of Hosts" that issued the blast that felled the walls, but the congregation of Israel. Heralds go before the returning king to announce his entry. If the trumpet sounds and the archangel himself introduces the returning King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, you can be guaranteed that the archangel is subservient to He whom is returning.

However, if we were to accept the JW argument above, that notes that the return of Jesus is announced with the voice of the archangel, then by the same logic, as he is also announced with the trump of God, we must also presume that Jesus is a trumpet.

Michael has angels, Jesus has angels, God has angels



This argument above seems to have forgotten that God also has command of the faithful angels. Psalm 103:20, "Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, and do his commandments, hearkening the voice of his word." One of God's titles is "Lord of Hosts" meaning that he commands the armies of heaven, the faithful angels. The JW argument above would also require that Michael the Archangel be the same as the LORD of Hosts.

...

The JW official website only had those two categories of arguments. There's only three places in scripture where Michael is named: Daniel, Jude, and Revelation. What they didn't mention destroys their own arguments.

Michael is not a unique class of being

Daniel 10:13 KJV
(13) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Whereas the JW site above argued that because Michael was "the archangel" thus there must only be one archangel, the passage in Daniel refers to Michael as simply "one of the chief princes" indicating that he is one of a category of many.

Jesus rebuked the devil, whereas Michael the archangel dared not

Jude 1:9 KJV
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Contrast this with Jesus, who openly rebuked the devil, and never with a meek "the Lord rebuke thee."

Matthew 4:10-11 KJV
(10) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(11) Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Matthew 17:17-19 KJV
(17) Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
(18) And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
(19) Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

...

There's only three spots in scripture where Michael is mentioned. None of them give evidence that Jesus is Michael, or an archangel, and some of these very same spots testify against it.

Hebrews 1:4-8 KJV
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

It should be self evident that Jesus is no angel, be it cherub, archangel, or otherwise. How many more times does Paul need to repeat himself to tell us that Jesus is not an angel?

:thumb:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

I wasn't speaking about you insulting only NWL.

Are you EvilEye?

Lol,

You think Eye'm everywhere. Nope.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/


Jesus cannot be an archangel by definition



The scripture says that the Word was God, and that the Word created all things, and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3) and the conclusion of John's gospel is summed in Thomas's confession of Jesus as "my Lord and my God." Jesus is called the creator, angels are called created things (Hebrews 1:7, 12:9).

It should be self-evidence that a "chief angel" is indeed an "angel." When the JW statement says that "archangel" only occurs in the singular, it neglected to mention that it is using a pool of only two instances (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16 "with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" and Jude 1:9 "Michael the archangel.")

In the first case, claiming that the word "the" means there is only one archangel in existence would also require that there is only one trumpet in existence. In the second case, attempting to apply "Michael the archangel" to mean there could only be one archangel, would be akin to using "Jeremy the prophet" (Matthew 2:17, 27:9) to say there is only one prophet. Although we are not told how many archangels there might be, saying that there must only be one is groundless speculation.


A King does not trumpet his own entrance



1 Thessalonians 4:16 KJV
(16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:


A conqueror does not have to issue his own shout or blast his own trumpet. When Israel surrounded Jericho, it was not the "Captain of the Lord of Hosts" that issued the blast that felled the walls, but the congregation of Israel. Heralds go before the returning king to announce his entry. If the trumpet sounds and the archangel himself introduces the returning King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, you can be guaranteed that the archangel is subservient to He whom is returning.

However, if we were to accept the JW argument above, that notes that the return of Jesus is announced with the voice of the archangel, then by the same logic, as he is also announced with the trump of God, we must also presume that Jesus is a trumpet.

Michael has angels, Jesus has angels, God has angels



This argument above seems to have forgotten that God also has command of the faithful angels. Psalm 103:20, "Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, and do his commandments, hearkening the voice of his word." One of God's titles is "Lord of Hosts" meaning that he commands the armies of heaven, the faithful angels. The JW argument above would also require that Michael the Archangel be the same as the LORD of Hosts.

...

The JW official website only had those two categories of arguments. There's only three places in scripture where Michael is named: Daniel, Jude, and Revelation. What they didn't mention destroys their own arguments.

Michael is not a unique class of being

Daniel 10:13 KJV
(13) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Whereas the JW site above argued that because Michael was "the archangel" thus there must only be one archangel, the passage in Daniel refers to Michael as simply "one of the chief princes" indicating that he is one of a category of many.

Jesus rebuked the devil, whereas Michael the archangel dared not

Jude 1:9 KJV
(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Contrast this with Jesus, who openly rebuked the devil, and never with a meek "the Lord rebuke thee."

Matthew 4:10-11 KJV
(10) Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(11) Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Matthew 17:17-19 KJV
(17) Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
(18) And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
(19) Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

...

There's only three spots in scripture where Michael is mentioned. None of them give evidence that Jesus is Michael, or an archangel, and some of these very same spots testify against it.

Hebrews 1:4-8 KJV
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

It should be self evident that Jesus is no angel, be it cherub, archangel, or otherwise. How many more times does Paul need to repeat himself to tell us that Jesus is not an angel?

I didn't want Meshak to miss your awesome post.

For Meshak

Spoiler

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever
[MENTION=13959]meshak[/MENTION] ... Welcome Back

 

[Bright Raven]

:thumb:

 

[Bright Raven]

John 1:1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Word Made Flesh
14 And the Word became flesh, and [a]dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1 John 1:1-2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Introduction, The Incarnate Word
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—

 

[keypurr]

John 1:1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The logos can not be Jesus for Jesus was born into the world created through the logos.

John 1:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Word Made Flesh
14 And the Word became flesh, and [a]dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Proof again that the flesh Jesus was born into the world created through the logos.
The logos is a spirit that became flesh in the body prepared for it.

1 John 1:1-2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Introduction, The Incarnate Word
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—

Again it speaks of the logos manifested, made known, as flesh to bring us understanding.

The SON (logos) was SENT not born into this world.

Peace my friend.

 

[keypurr]

1. Is that a "yes, God was unable to preserve his words until all be fulfilled" then?
2. The Roman church did not change the Sabbath, for multiple reasons. One of which they lack jurisdiction. Regardless, if you are concerned about Sabbaths, look to he who has jurisdiction over the Sabbath as to which sabbaths he wants you to observe.

Who is the LORD of the Sabbath?

Exo 20:10-11
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Mat 12:8
(8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Joh 1:3
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:15-16
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

According to the original commandment, the LORD of the Sabbath is the creator of heaven and earth. Jesus is the creator of heaven and earth. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus is the LORD of the Sabbath, the creator of heaven and earth.

By the way, as to Sabbaths: Jesus says that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and it was acceptable for his disciples to profane the Sabbath day in service of him. What does that suggest? He has the power to declare what is acceptable or not on the Sabbath, because he made and instituted the Sabbath. The creator is greater than his creation.

Mat 12:2-8
(2) But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
(3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
(4) How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
(5) Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
(6) But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
(7) But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
(8) For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Do you think that God's Ten Commandments are gone?

Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

1Jo 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1Jo 2:4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1Jo 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
1Jo 2:6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
1Jo 2:7 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Eze 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
Eze 20:16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
.
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.


Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Heb 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Why do "Christians" follow the laws of men and turn away from the Laws of God?

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

 

[Rosenritter]

Do you think that God's Ten Commandments are gone?

Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Why do "Christians" follow the laws of men and turn away from the Laws of God?

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The Ten Commandments were never given to the Gentile people. They, as well as the entire Law of Moses, the circumcision, was given to Israel. That covenant was made with Israel, and gentiles were not given the promises for obedience, or the curses for disobedience.

Are you Israelite? Even if you were, you should see what the New Testament authors have to say about where "following the law" will get you. The Old Covenant had blessings that could apply, but ultimately it still led to death.

Hebrews 8:13 KJV
(13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Do you see any promises of eternal life within that Old Covenant? Even if you were Israelite, and could claim that the Law of Moses, the Ten Commandments, and the circumcision applied to you, it is worthless in the face of the covenant that is now offered to all through the blood of Christ, available for any gentile.

Even if you were Israelite, you would do better to accept Christ as a mere gentile.

If you are hung up on "the law" then I have this to say to you: there is a better law, a higher law, the law upon which the Ten Commandments themselves fell underneath. Jesus names this law in the gospels. This is the law by which we are bound, this is the law of the New Covenant. If you want to talk about the law, find that law, and tell me what it is.

 

[glorydaz]

Do you think that God's Ten Commandments are gone?

Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Spoiler

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

1Jo 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1Jo 2:4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1Jo 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
1Jo 2:6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
1Jo 2:7 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Eze 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
Eze 20:16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
.
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.


Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Heb 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Why do "Christians" follow the laws of men and turn away from the Laws of God?

First you say love is the fulfilling of the law, and then you proceed to give scriptures about keeping the law. :doh:


The righteousness of the law of God is fulfilled in the believer when the love of God is shed abroad on our heart by the Spirit when we believe. Romans 8:4 Romans 5:5

 

[white eagle cross]

Unto my being by which I am being the IS IS Lord God Almighty. Amen

The Word of God, if one read it regarding only the literal sense, it seemingly has many incongruities, paradoxes, and doubling of words. Much of this is due to the purpose of the Holy Scripture writings by inspired men of God, Prophets and Apostles. Also, it is paramount that one be cognizant of the context while searching out the fruits therein.

It is written in this way quite actually to protect men from themselves, and maintain the sanctity, and integrity of the Holiness within the Spiritual, and Celestial meanings fulfilling therein. And for those who may receive, this is that working of Seraphim and Cherubim, which don’t allow any to approach the Holy of Holies by which it's sanctity, may become compromised.

One may be drawn by the Lord God to appear before Him; that agrees with their lives lived and/or ruling loves. Therefore, it may be known, there isn't one fake in Heaven, nor can there be, or would one want to be. Also, therefore many today, are in error, when they refer to verses in the Holy Scriptures as metaphoric and/or symbolic.

For the Word of God is an infinite and eternal Living Word, and therefore divine, which would make symbolism and metaphors, like is found in the common books of men, incongruent. The Word of God, in the written letter, is homogeneous with the Divine Trinity in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, and being so, either knowingly and/or unknowingly, all of creation is under His Divine auspices.

Therefore, for those who desire a more enriching, close, and real relationship with the Lord God, they may do so by removing the old constructs of symbolism and metaphors, while proportionately replacing in actual what is analogously signatitive and representative correspondences with the Heavenly Host.

It is in this way, and none other, the lives of men and Angels are brought into fulfilling blessedness having conjunction with the Spirit of God and His Christ. I believe it would be most beneficial for all peoples to come to understand the triune, which exist in every aspect of being and creation.

Whether it is in the mineral kingdom, vegetable kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man, kingdom of Angels, all the way unto the Divine Kingdom of the Living Lord God Almighty, all is a triune. The process by which we think, feel, and provide uses is all requiring a triune of first end, middle end, and last end or simply end, cause, and effect. Remove any one of these three removes them all, and continuance in new beginnings ended.

*The particulars of the Divine Trinity are expounded on in Chapter; Unfathomable Wonderment, Holy Trinity Taught Correctly in Its Age.

Let me know in the reply section for additional expounded information. The Divine Person of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, though in essence is uncreate and indivisibly one, is distinguishably so in a Divine Trinity of Father (creative Divine), Son (ultimate human form of creative Divine, and Holy Spirit (emanating goodwill of the Holy of Holies union in ultimate of Christ glorified body). My friends this Divine Trinity is one as soul, body, and operation in man is one, and even more so when on consider the Lord God is the very all in all by which we of the living are created in the image and likeness there in, from, and too. Amen

Now my friends this makes for a most wonderful thing to know in each of us, that we are having in our gifted capacity of the Lord God that potential to be natural, Spiritual, and Celestial. True of ourselves we choose many times the lowest state in our being, but in and too Christ the higher lives are possible. Just consider the Word of God, it is written in a literal sense to protect man from harming his soul, and maintain the sanctity of the meanings fulfilling there in from on High; else all would be consumed and die. Selah

The written Word was first accepted by God of Enoch the seventh son from Adam (Most Ancient Church Man “Celestials” first imbibed of God), and was translated into Heaven that we of the posterity may have yet this day continuance in our Lord’s Blessing. For in that literal sense of the Word of God is Celestial and Spiritual meanings.

Now these fulfill from the Celestial into the Spiritual into the literal and not the reverse. To crystallize this point, just listen to accepted members of the Church establishment learned men and women explain the Divine Trinity and/or Holy Trinity, and Holy Book of Revelation. And one can begin to see what happens when contrivances of man’s knowledge perverts the Word of God when they try and press the natural sense into the Spiritual and Celestial meanings. At times, they make such an abortion of the Word, it is painful even to hear and see them doing it.

Today a growing number of Churches and “their” teachers have all but totally disregarded the OT some even removed the Holy Book of Revelation, which by the way is an entirely Spiritual writing. I believe in large part much of the darkness, even a consummation of the Christian Church age, is directly traceable back to the Counsel of Nicaea, where first they confused the Apostles Creed, and made a three-headed monster in a divine trinity of persons.

My friends, there is none way the Word of God will open up into the precious Spiritual and Celestial meanings while one is holding to three gods, nor can it, for to do so would be contrary to the Divine in which God the Father is Lord, Savior of the world, and Redeemer of all in all. Thank you, Lord. This is enough for now. Thank you, Lord Jesus Christ. Amen