frosbel: Do not be deceived brethren by the JW stance on this specific issue.

It is blasphemy to suggest that an angel was sent to die for the sins of mankind.

Only a MAN could undo what the First Adam has spoilt and that Man was the Messiah, the Christ and the Son of GOD.

He was not GOD or an angel , rather he came as a MAN , died as a MAN , and is glorified as the first MAN as Son of GOD , to defeat Sin and Death.

Do not be deceived, angel worship is s serious error.

frosbel:

I can go on lenghty debates , but my schedule is very busy these days.

I will address this in greater detail in the coming weeks.

For now, I can assure you that Jesus Christ is not Angel Michael, this is a flawed position which by the way was not an original doctrine of JW when they first started.

It is totally unbiblical.

BARRISTERS:

common, why wasting your precious time with 'a kindergarten pupil' who does not know his left from right and even moreso continue to remain adamant in ignorance is insanity! common move on pls,dont give what is holy to the p.i.g.s.... just watch,he will reply with insult now,and that is what they are here to do.

BARRISTERS:

common, why wasting your precious time with 'a kindergarten pupil' who does not know his left from right and even moreso continue to remain adamant in ignorance is insanity! common move on pls,dont give what is holy to the p.i.g.s.... just watch,he will reply with insult now,and that is what they are here to do.

ijawkid:

And you have still not answered where Jesus came from in contrast to where John came from............

_______________________

Where did Jesus come from??......what was he before he was sent to the earth?? A spirit or a man??.......

what you should be asking is why the other remaining 3 translations rendered JOHN to be a "messenger" but JESUS an ""angel"" although both extracted from the same hebrew $ greek word...........

__________________

I will ask u again...

Where did Jesus come from??....

truthislight:

all the flaming fires are Yahweh's messengers/angels

Yahweh also chose human to be his messengers.

Any body between spirit creatures and human can be a messenger of Yahweh.

It is really a very great thing to be a messenger of the creator of the univers

And that is why the bible says that of all that is born of woman none is greater than John the baptist.
^^^
he was very great.

@ my friend frosbel

was John the baptist greater than Jesus christ?

If no, why?

TroGunn: Meanwhile, seems the "mighty angel" in Revelation 10:1-3 may also refer to Jesus Christ.

Revelation 10:1-3 -- "Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke".

This obviously "strong messenger" (according to Young's Literal Translation) has characteristics that seem to match in so many ways to Jesus as described in Revelation and other parts of the Bible.

a) Comes in a cloud . Revelation 1:7 describes Jesus as coming in a cloud --“Look, he is coming with the clouds,”and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”;and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.

b) Face like the sun . Rev 1:16 describes Jesus face as the sun --"In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance".

c) legs like fiery pillars . Revelation 1:14-15 says of Jesus --"The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace , and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters".

d) voice has roar of a lion . Revelation 5:5 says Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah -- Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

e) his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land (meaning great authority over all). Psalm 8:5-6 9 (Hebrews 2: 6-8 ) -- "You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet". Only Jesus has been granted such authority.

f) a rainbow above his head - The rainbow is an emblem of peace. Christ is the "Prince of Peace" - Isaiah 9:6

Boomark:

Jesus came from heaven. He is a spirit.

So are all heavenly being angels?

pastormustwacc: I even went as far as to define the meaning of Angels, from a biblical point of view, but. . . .CBB (Confusion Break Bones)

ijawkid:

What has been happening is comparing scriptures with scriptures to arrive at a position......

What daniel saw is not a joke and it applies exactly to Jesus.........

A bible student can't see such clear parallels in the scriptures and act as if he or she never saw it....

That is why I've asked questions to see if you guys can explain scripturally to prove that MICHAEL's actions does not tally with Jesus'...........

1.....Michael was seen standing up in the last days(end times) with great tribulations as a sign of his standing up........(JESUS)' presence in the last days will be marked also by great tribulations....you can read matthwe 24 to see it all...........

2......Michaels standing up in the end times also leads to the dead been raised up and judged into eternal life or damnation.....(JESUS) would do exactly the same thing in the end times..........

3.....Michael has his angels.......Jesus too has his angels..........I wonder what heaven would look like when MIChael or Jesus keeps replicating same actions.........abi them be twins??......
_____________________

Now this is why 1 thesselonians adds everything up..............

If there is any other angel or spirit son of God that has been given the authority to appear in the end to ressurect the dead and judge them apart from Jesus you can tell us.........

From the bible,it is only Jesus who has been given that great authority........
__________________________

According to buzugee my twin bro ""its precept upon precept,here a little there a little.."".......

Lol......

TroGunn: @bookmark

This particular verse is not really about the ressurection, it's about gathering of the "chosen ones". It corresponds to Revelation 7:1-4 with more details -- "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.”"

plappville:

Where did He come from?

Boomark:

Michael is a great angel and has a great role to play at the last days. The great tribulation will usher in the coming of Christ and Michael will not be resting that time.

Daniel showed us what Michael does that is standing for the people of God.

This is the summary of my explanation of 1 thessalonians 4:16.

1 Christ will give a commanding call and the dead will rise first.

2 Michael will stand for the elect. How? Satan and his demon will come to drag the elect as he did against Moses and he will hear his voice say "the Lord rebuke you."

3 The trumpet of God(i hope u knw they are angels) will then gather the elect, mt 24:31.

This just sweet when done step by step no jumping.

truthislight:

and if he is of the opinion that this angel was doing the work of resurrection then he bookmark is not getting it right.

Maybe it is because he is assigning the work of resurrection to another angel that is why my mind could not relate with what he was saying.

I know that befor the destruction of this system of things the work of identifying those that will survive must be completed first, and angel of Yahweh are involve in doing that.

As people respond to the gospel of the kingdom and attuned their life to it the angel of Yahweh identify such a one with a mark so that when the four(4) angels holding the wind of destruction that will destroy the wicked the marked ones will be saved for life eternal.
^^^
That is not talking about the resurrection of the death.

1. The Resurection of the death takes place after the destruction of the wicked.(second Resurection) John 5:25-29,

2. the first Resurection - Revelation 20:6

^^^
this is on going during the lords presence. And he is the one that said he is going to prepare a place for them and he is coming to receive them, so that where he is there they will be also.

" i am the way the truth and the life, no one goes to the father except through me" - John 14:3,6 (meaning no other angel can do that apart from christ)

He christ is still the one that will "take" them and not another angel.

While those of the first Resurection (2 above) are already seating on throne with christ - (Revelation 20:4,6) to judge the death that will be resurected during the 1000yrs Judgement day - Revelation 20-12,13.


I dont know how bookmark arrived at another angel doing the resurrection.

"No one goes to the father except through me"
John 14:6.

pastormustwacc: One thing that is very glaring on this thread is that most of the contributors dont even know the meaning of angel in the first place.
I believe that Jesus is an angel in the first place (going by the definition of an angel), but whether he is arcangel michael or not is the question.

plappville: @true2god

In Hebrews we can see that when God puts the "firstborn" into the world, that He says to the angels to worship Him!

But when He again [b] brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."

pastormustwacc:
Walahi, na all them fowerful angels for bible, be jesus?

frosbel:

I can go on lenghty debates , but my schedule is very busy these days.

I will address this in greater detail in the coming weeks.

For now, I can assure you that Jesus Christ is not Angel Michael, this is a flawed position which by the way was not an original doctrine of JW when they first started.

It is totally unbiblical.

truthislight:

he is always not chance when he is ask to defend the none preexistance of Jesus.

When Anony opened a thread to this effect he also had similar excuses till the thread sided.

Here again he is extremely busy though he still finds time to engage people in many other thread on this forum.(tith and others)

This defence of his should have been very simple if it is a possibility since all he needs to do is present the evidence from the bible that he used to arrived at the fact that Jesus never preexisted.

Or, did he get that from the koran? Lol.

I once red him saying that the moslem has got many biblical doctrine right.

Maybe, this is one of such he got from the moslem cus his stance and that of the moslem are the same.

So, expecting him to make a defence of such trash from the bible is impossible and hence his running and claiming "busy for weeks to come"

why are people so dishonest?

Boomark:

Christ is an exception.
That all power on earth and in heaven has been give to the son, does it mean the Father has no power again? 1Cor 15:27-28.

Your answer above does not in any way related to how God made His angels that contrast that of your angel John the Baptist. Ps 104:4.

Boomark:
Christ is an exception.

Boomark:

That all power on earth and in heaven has been give to the son, does it mean the Father has no power again? 1Cor 15:27-28.

Jesus Christ Did Not Pre-exist!

Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not "God the Son, " a phrase not found in Scripture), begotten of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit

This doctrine affirms that Jesus was the Son or offspring of God, and that God had the power and authority to cause his birth. As his position was to be the savior of men, it was necessary that he be a man, not an immortal, preexistent being. Like all flesh-born sons of men, he developed embryonically in his mother's womb for approximately nine months: "And Joseph also went up from Galilee ... with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son ..." (Luke 2:4-7).

The covenant of circumcision was an adjunct of the Mosaic law, and all Jewish males were required to be circumcised on the eighth day. Childbirth defiled the Jewish mother, and certain purification rites were necessary for cleansing: "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days" (Lev. 12:2-6). Condemnation passed upon all men as a result of Edenic disobedience. All descendants of Adam came under this sentence of death merely by being born, and Jesus was no exception (Rom. 5:12, 18; cp. Heb. 2:14, 16-18).

"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord" (Luke 2:21-22). In the act of circumcision there was an acknowledgment of the existence of sin and of the necessity of blood to remove sin. If we believe the testimony of the Bible, we will acknowledge a Jesus who was born after the usual course of man's development from conception to birth. However, as our proposition above is stated, he was begotten of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. God was his Father, in that God caused the power of the Holy Spirit to overshadow Mary and to work germinatively upon her. As a virgin, she had known no man. No mortal man had anything to do with the birth of Christ, not Joseph nor anyone else. When God announced at Jesus' baptism that "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17), He was expressing a relationship that substantively existed, a Son of His begettal.



Trinitarian Theory

It is evident that the wording of the proposition under review is a direct disputation of the trinitarian theory. Instead of Christendom's "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," the Bible teaches quite clearly that there is one God, who is the Father and supreme head of all things, that His Son is of His begettal and brought forth in the birth process from a mortal woman, and that the Holy Spirit is God's special power which He utilizes for selective purposes. The testimony of Luke 1: 3 5 should satisfy the inquiring mind with its reference to the specific assignments of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

We have heard that the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted into "the church" by a single vote. Perhaps some reader could write in to verify the source of this statement, if it is correct. It really makes no difference how it came to be accepted into "the church" as long as we recognize that it is a fallacious piece of sophistry. It is a well documented fact that the doctrine of the Trinity officially became sanctioned by "Christianity" at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The work of establishing the church's position on the matter was prominently influenced by Athanasius (298-373), bishop of Alexandria. We hear the terms, Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed, referred to in the theological discussions about the Trinity. The following quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica provides some information which should be interesting to those seeking the background of the trinitarian theory:

"Arius had received his theological education in the school of the presbyter Lucian of Antioch, a learned man, and distinguished especially as a biblical scholar. The latter was a follower of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who had been excommunicated in 269, but his theology differed from that of his master in a fundamental point. Paul, starting with the conviction that the One God cannot appear substantially on earth, and, consequently, that he cannot have become man in Jesus Christ, had taught that God had filled the man Jesus with his logos or power. Lucian, on the other hand, persisted in holding that the logos became man in Christ. But since he shared the above-mentioned belief of his master nothing remained for him but to see in the logos a second essence, created by God before the world, which came down to earth and took upon himself a human body. In this body the logos filled the place of the intellectual or spiritual principle. Lucian's Christ, then, was not 'perfect man,' for that which constituted in him the personal element was a divine essence;. nor was he 'perfect God,' ****for the divine essence was a created being. It is this idea which Arius took up and interpreted. His doctrinal position is explained in his letters to his patron Eusebius, bishop of the imperial city of Nicomedia, and to Alexander of Alexandria, and in the fragments of the poem in which he set forth his dogmas. From these writings it can even nowadays be seen clearly that the principal object which he had in view was firmly to establish the unity and simplicity of the eternal God. However far the Son may surpass other created beings, he remains himself a created being, to whom the Father before all time gave an existence formed ,out of nothing.' Arius was quite unconscious that his own monotheism was hardly to be distinguished from that of the pagan philosophers, and that this Christ was a demigod."

It (the controversy) reached even the ears of Constantine. Now sole emperor, he saw in the one Catholic Church the best means of counteracting the movement in his vast empire towards disintegration; and he at once realized how dangerous dogmatic strife might prove to its unity. Constantine had no understanding of the questions at issue; and no course was left but to summon a general or ecumenical council, which was convened in Nicaea in 325. After various turns in the controversy, it was finally decided, against Arius, that the Son was "of the same substance" with the Father, and all thought of his being created or even subordinate had to be excluded. Constantine accepted the decision of the council and resolved to uphold it.

Also, see Nicaea, Council of "The Council of Nicaea is an event of the highest importance in the history of Christianity. Its convocation by Constantine and its course illustrate the radical revolution which the position of this religion, within the confines of the Roman empire, had undergone in consequence of the Edict of Milan. From his accession Constantine had shown himself the friend of the Christians; and, when his victory over Licinius (A.D. 3 2 3) gave him undisputed possession of the crown, he adhered to this religious policy distinguishing and fortifying the Christian cause by gratuities and grants of privilege. This propitiatory attitude originated in the fact that he recognized Christianity - which had successfully braved so many persecutions - as the most vital and vigorous of religions, and as the power of the future ... The deliberations on the Arian question passed through several distinct stages before the final condemnation of Arius and his doctrines was reached ... Accordingly Constantine proposed that the Caesarean creed should be modified by the insertion of the Alexandrian passwords (including the decisive term, 'identical in nature'), as if for the purpose of more accurate definition, and by the deletion of certain portions. That he appreciated the import of these alterations, or realized that this revision was virtually the proclamation of a new doctrine, is scarcely probable. The creed thus evolved by an artificial unity was no ratification of peace: in fact, it 4 paved the way for a struggle which convulsed the whole empire."

Also, see Athanasius the Great: "Alexander had inherited from his predecessor the, disorders caused by the schismatic ordinations of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, who had intruded himself during the persecution into the diocese. To these in 319 were added the dissension caused by the teaching of Arius. Arius taught that the Son of God was a created being. There was a time when he did not exist. He was, indeed, the first born of all creatures and surpassed them in dignity. Through him all other creatures were made. But he could only be called divine in a limited and secondary sense. Arius also denied the full humanity of Christ. He held that this semi-divine being only took a body through which he acted. The Council of Nicaea were forced to employ some technical term, not in Scripture, to rule out such teaching which contradicted the sense of Scripture. Thus they added to the Creed the test word homoousios, that is, 'of one essence' or 'substance.' There is nothing materialistic about it in Greek. All that it asserts is that whatever the essential being of God is, namely divinity, the Father and the Son possess it equally. They also affirmed that the Son was 'of the ousia or essential being, of the Father,' that is, he was not created out of nothing; he existed eternally ... The term ousia was ambiguous. It might mean either a particular being or a common essence. The same ambiguity belonged to the term

hypostasis, though it inclined to the meaning of a particular entity. In the anathemas appended to the Creed of Nicaea ousia and hypostasis were employed as synonyms. This increased the suspicion of the East that the term homes really excluded any real distinctions in the Godhead. On the other hand, writers who used the term hypostasis in the sense of 'Person,' to mark the distinctions in the Godhead seemed to those who used it in the other sense to be speaking of three gods. Athanasius saw that the dispute was at bottom a matter of the use of terms. In the important Tomus ad Antiochenos which records the decisions of the council, both uses of hypostasis were recognized and explained, and the term home was cleared of ambiguity. The way was prepared for the acceptance of the later terminology, 'One ousia, "Three Hypostases,' corresponding to the Western, 'One Substance,' 'Three Persons.' "

No Pre-existence

Even though the Arians were closer to the truth on the nature of Christ than were the Trinitarians or Catholics, they did not understand it correctly. The Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is the distinct. Son of God, begotten of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. For 4,000 years following the creation of Adam and Eve there was no Jesus; he did not exist for he had not yet been born. We see in Galatians 4:4 that "when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." The inferior status of Jesus due to his birth circumstances plainly shows that he was not an equal of the self-existent Deity. Jesus said, in John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I " John 3:35 testifies, "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." And Jesus prayed in John 17:1-3, "Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.... And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." It is significant that redemption was promised in Genesis 3:15 through the woman's seed, not man and woman's. The use of the term, seed, indicates that the subject did not at that time exist. Seed implies predecessor, and it is clear that God preceded His Son just as every father preceded his son.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:18).

http://www.learnbible.net/?q=JesusDidNotPrexist

Boomark:

Michael is a great angel and has a great role to play at the last days. The great tribulation will usher in the coming of Christ and Michael will not be resting that time.

Daniel showed us what Michael does that is standing for the people of God.

This is the summary of my explanation of 1 thessalonians 4:16.

1 Christ will give a commanding call and the dead will rise first.

2 Michael will stand for the elect. How? Satan and his demon will come to drag the elect as he did against Moses and he will hear his voice say "the Lord rebuke you."

3 The trumpet of God(i hope u knw they are angels) will then gather the elect, mt 24:31.

This just sweet when done step by step no jumping.

Boomark:

Michael is a great angel and has a great role to play at the last days. The great tribulation will usher in the coming of Christ and Michael will not be resting that time.

frosbel: ^^^^

This small article explains my position .

TroGunn:

True, Trinity finds no support in the scrptures.

Article is right about Jesus not pre-existing as Almighty God Yahweh.

But article is wrong in deny Jesus preexisted at all - it just opted to ignore scriptures that confirms he preexisted. You need to face up to and explain such verses, like the few below -

ohn 1:1-3 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made".

John 1:14 -- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 6:62 -- "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending TO WHERE HE WAS BEFORE?"

Prov 8:30 -- "Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence"

Matthew 22:41-46 -- "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The LORD (Yahweh) said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions"".

You can't just ignore scriptures that go against your personally held beliefs. If you do, you are really no different from Trinitarians, because that's what they do.

frosbel: Do not be deceived brethren by the JW stance on this specific issue.

[size=14pt]1) It is blasphemy to suggest that an angel was sent to die for the sins of mankind. [/size]

Only a MAN could undo what the First Adam has spoilt and that Man was the Messiah, the Christ and the Son of GOD.

He was not GOD or an angel , rather he came as a MAN , died as a MAN , and is glorified as the first MAN as Son of GOD , to defeat Sin and Death.

[size=14pt]2) Do not be deceived,[/size] angel worship is s serious error.

TroGunn:

True, Trinity finds no support in the scrptures.

Article is right about Jesus not pre-existing as Almighty God Yahweh.

But article is wrong in denying Jesus preexisted at all - it just opted to ignore scriptures that confirms he preexisted. You need to face up to and explain such verses, like the few below -

ohn 1:1-3 -- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made".

John 1:14 -- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 6:62 -- "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending TO WHERE HE WAS BEFORE?"

Prov 8:30 -- "Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence"

Matthew 22:41-46 -- "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The LORD (Yahweh) said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions"".

You can't just ignore scriptures that go against your personally held beliefs. If you do, you are really no different from Trinitarians, because that's what they do.

frosbel: [/quote]


[quote author=frosbel]^^^^

This small article explains my position .

Maryjanee:
i am confused as well. For those who say d "angel of d covenant" is'nt Jesus who is it then?