Is there more than One coming?
... you do realize that sounds a bit contradictory, and against the whole sense of what was being said and why?
Well its not. Jesus comes in the name of his father and does all things for his Father. Jesus coming is merely an instruction from and for the Father. The same way God judges through Jesus (Acts 17:31), is a saviour through Jesus (John 3:17) and gives life through Jesus (1 thess 4:14) even though scripture states Jesus is judge, saviour and life giver, the Father comes through Jesus.
Let's go back a bit further to one of the most ancient prophets Job 19:25-26
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
That sounds an awfully lot like Job is saying that his redeemer is currently alive, his redeemer shall physically stand upon the earth, and be visible by those with actual eyes to see. Thus even according to the prophet Job, the Son of God is God, God shall be manifest in the flesh.
a) For I know that my redeemer liveth.
b) and he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.
c) yet in my flesh shall I see God
Job didn't have the name Jesus as of yet, but you yourself identified it is Jesus who shall stand in the latter day upon the earth, visible to the naked eye of the normal man in the flesh. If you honor the Old Testament as scripture, then shouldn't the scripture itself be forming our preconceptions and assumptions, not the dictates of Watchtower theology (or any theological system?)
Job seeing God in Job 19:26 was not in relation to seeing Jesus or people seeing Jesus. Job was talking about seeing God, which he did when looking at Job 45:5 after the account where Jehovah spoke to him out of a windstorm,
"My ears have heard about you, But now I do see you with my eyes". Job 19:25 is talking about the prospect of being redeemed through Jesus in future time but it isn't calling Jesus God by v26. Jesus was no doubt alive at the time Job said this since he existed as God first creation.
One priesthood is on a basis to only a specific people (the priesthood of Levi) and the other is without the Law and Old Covenant (the priesthood of Melchizedek.) One priest was a priest on a rather exclusive basis, known only to one or two (Sarah and Abraham) the other is a priest on the most inclusive basis imagined for all who ever lived and shall live.
The Psalm speaks of two types of Gods: God, who judges among the gods. Jesus it the judge, not the one being judged. Jesus is God with capital G in that context, not a lowercase g. Had he lowered himself to lowercase g the Jews would not have picked up rocks to stone him.
Then Jesus words made no sense.
Again the Judges in Psalms 82:1 is not in relation to gods who are being judged but rather gods who God judges amongst, it seems you keep failing to see this plain point. The gods were in relation to divinely appointed Israelite judges who were appointed by god to Judge the nation of Israel. You for some reason keep saying God was judging these judges. See Exodus 18:21, 22.
The Jews were accusing and charging Jesus for blasphemy,
"We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself God (a god).”. Please tell me how does Jesus responding back
"Is it not written in your Law, I said: “You are gods”" answer the charge for blasphemy.
The Jews charge: We are stoning you for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself God.
Jesus answers: Is it not written You are gods
How does Jesus answer answer the charge for blasphemy when we understand the theos in John 10:33 to mean God with a capital G? It doesn't! Jesus words make no sense, he doesn't answer the charge they put to him, how does Jesus calling them gods defend the claim that they called him God capital G?
However when we change the word thoes to "a god" which is 100% grammatically doable, we have this:
The Jews charge: We are stoning you for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god
Jesus answers: Is it not written You are gods
This makes sense, the Jews accuse him of blaspheming because he likened himself to a god and Jesus turns their argument on them by highlighting that they too are gods. Jesus here answers the charge. Jesus words make no sense unless you see the thoes in John 10:33 as "a god"
You keep saying "image" so my answer is the same. You killed me in your example. If you were to say that this was just a look-alike, a doppleganger, or something that was not me and different from me, then your answer would be different. It doesn't matter how many times you keep asking the question again while unchanging that one most important part of the question.
You're clearly evading the quesiton, we both know what the answer is. You merely know the implications answering it truthfully will bring. I get how your trying to be smart by claiming it is you, even though it isn't since its a
copy of you, but it doesn't work in the real world
Your responses seem to depend on isolating the scriptures from one another. When Jesus chides his disciples for asking "Show us the Father" and replies "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" passages like these combine with each other, like the way a multi-threaded rope gains strength and durability.
Your completely correct, that why when Jesus said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" in John 14:10 we should consider the context, John 14:1 states "believe God; believe also in me". Jesus spoke of himself as seperate as God the Father in v1, nine verses later he states that he is literally God the Father, does that make sense considering what he said in v1? No. Jesus statement found in v10 is in regards Jesus actions and words, remember he clearly states
"The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works."Since Jesus Jesus words and actions are merely the Father words and actions as Jesus obeys the Father "to see the Son is to see the Father".
You know that the statement in Col 1:15 isn't about attempting to limit or differentiate Jesus from God, but rather the opposite.
God is not manifest in the flesh, remember not everyone see the corrupt KJV as inspired as you do.
It seems to me that from a Hebrew mindset, the image of the invisible is more real than the invisible. That is why it says God was manifest in the flesh. That is why Job says that God shall stand upon the earth, and that he will see him with his very eyes. That is why John chose the name "the Word" and emphasized that the Word isn't just similar to God, the Word IS God. That is why Jesus purposely picks the most exclusive names and titles of God and assigns them to himself, that is why even the angels of God worship Jesus, that is why we are told that Jesus created all things, and without him nothing that was created was made.
the image of the invisible is more real than the invisible??? This makes no sense. Again if Jesus is the image of God, and God is invisible then Jesus too is invisible, if Jesus isn't invisible like God then he isn't his image since image are meant to reflect.
WORD definitions you say? We are talking about the definitions of the WORD, and the WORD is defined as God. Gospel of John, 1st chapter.
There are a few possibilities that are grammatically sound, one of them is that the word was "a god" in John 1:1b, this is undeniable. Jesus cannot be the God whom he was with, thus contextually, the rendering "the word was God" is not sound.