waow?

This one don turn to question jam answer. . .

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?" - Hebrews 1:5

Maybe we should go back to properly understanding the purpose of that statement by paul. It was not meant to prove that Jesus was not an Angel, but that he has surpassed the angels by decree of God and has attained a loftier position. YOU may read the same Hebrews 1 from verse 1, or better still just from verse 4.
The words in verse 5 are a quotation from Psalms 2:7 (Psalm 2:7 New International Version (NIV)7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.)
The tone of the passage suggests a change of status, like an adoption. Thus Paul could infer that Jesus attained a change of status and has now attained a position that is unique and makes him different from the angels. He is now God's son has be given the power and authority that only the "only begotten son of God" could have.

Paul was encouraging the hebrew christians through these arguments to show them that faith in Jesus vital for there salvation, and that all that he said about himself was sure to come true. Reading Hebrews 2:1,2 makes this fact clearer, where he states that if all the words God spoke through angels came true (facts that they the Hebrew Christians have evidence of since they were of jewish background), would the declarations of God through his only begotten son not come true? If they believed in the angels, it would be unreasonable to lose faith in Jesus given that he was (is)God's own son, not just a messanger (like the angels)

Pauls words don't prove that Jesus was not an angel.

true2god: I pray u and i will be alive when watchtower will give u 'a new light' on dis matter. They hav done it before, they r doing it now and dey will do it again.

I hope u wont feel embarrasd wen they tell u dat Jesus is anoda person entirely with some new 'research' and inconsistent quotes frm the scriptures to bring more confusion to ur understanding of the scriptures. U had better do ur personal study of d scriptures and stop usin watchtower magazines as a guide to interpreting the sciptures.

It is highly misleading, i knw u wont take dat cos u r already too deep to see dem do wrong or misinterprete bible verses.

already too deep?

Lol. Lol. Lol.

true2god:
i knw u wont take dat cos u r already too deep to see dem do wrong or misinterprete bible verses.

truthislight:

already too deep?

Lol. Lol. Lol.

My question to u is dis, do u accept all what watchtower is teaching u today as nothing but the truth? I guess your answer to this question is YES in the affirmative.

If watchtower comes tomorrow and teach a slightly different thing (if anoda light gets brighter), against what u hav been tradtionally taught as 'the bible truth', will u accept it without question?

Boomark:

I never said God cannot use anybody for His purpose. My stand is that if God has used anybody, i want to see it in the scripture.

Concerning angel of the covenant and angel of the way clearer , that is just interpreted as messenger for uniformity sake. Rev made it clear...angel of the churches.

So u want to say, PAUL did not refers that *Angel of the lord* during the crossing from Egypt to be *Christ*? what else do you want as prove?

ralfo85:

Maybe we should go back to properly understanding the purpose of that statement by paul. It was not meant to prove that Jesus was not an Angel, but that he has surpassed the angels by decree of God and has attained a loftier position. YOU may read the same Hebrews 1 from verse 1, or better still just from verse 4.
The words in verse 5 are a quotation from Psalms 2:7 (Psalm 2:7 New International Version (NIV)7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.)
The tone of the passage suggests a change of status, like an adoption. Thus Paul could infer that Jesus attained a change of status and has now attained a position that is unique and makes him different from the angels. He is now God's son has be given the power and authority that only the "only begotten son of God" could have.

Paul was encouraging the hebrew christians through these arguments to show them that faith in Jesus vital for there salvation, and that all that he said about himself was sure to come true. Reading Hebrews 2:1,2 makes this fact clearer, where he states that if all the words God spoke through angels came true (facts that they the Hebrew Christians have evidence of since they were of jewish background), would the declarations of God through his only begotten son not come true? If they believed in the angels, it would be unreasonable to lose faith in Jesus given that he was (is)God's own son, not just a messanger (like the angels)

Pauls words don't prove that Jesus was not an angel.

Dont mind them jare, they will pretend not to have understanding of this verse they keep qouting it out of context. Christ went through some changes that gave him a higher position. for one to truelly believe on whar He was before, he/she must start from the OT. No one/man has seen God. So it has been Christ during the old days.

true2god: My question to u is dis, do u accept all what watchtower is teaching u today as nothing but the truth? I guess your answer to this question is YES in the affirmative.

If watchtower comes tomorrow and teach a slightly different thing (if anoda light gets brighter), against what u hav been tradtionally taught as 'the bible truth', will u accept it without question?

Welcome bk from work. please leave watchtower out of these, there aremany comments you have skiped, scroll back to answer them. i want to believe you are less busy now. So please try to refute those scriptures. Thank you.

Oluwa, Chineke, Ubangiji, Osanoboa, Abasi, God!!!!!!!!
What is going on here? 27 pages and still no conclusion!!! *mhen i've gats to un-follow this thread. So much confusion*

Todaynatoday: Oluwa, Chineke, Ubangiji, Osanoboa, Abasi, God!!!!!!!!
What is going on here? 27 pages and still no conclusion!!! *mhen i've gats to un-follow this thread. So much confusion*

The conclusion is as clear as day.

Clearly Archangel is Jesus Christ - same voice, same specific actions is Jesus and Archangel . Other bible verses show Jesus being referred to as an Angel. Of course Christ is higher than other angels, and is subordinate only to God.

Of course, this won't stop people from believing what they want to believe whether it tallies with the Bible or not. The danger for such persons is that they imply they know more than God.

TroGunn:

The conclusion is as clear as day.

Clearly Archangel is Jesus Christ - same voice, same specific actions is Jesus and Archangel . Other bible verses show Jesus being referred to as an Angel. Of course Christ is higher than other angels, and is subordinate only to God.

Of course, this won't stop people from believing what they want to believe whether it tallies with the Bible or not. The danger for such persons is that they imply they know more than God.

By the power vested in me as the original creator of the thread, i will now declare this thread closed before them kill me with orisi-risi theories!

TroGunn:

The conclusion is as clear as day.

Clearly Archangel is Jesus Christ - same voice, same specific actions is Jesus and Archangel . Other bible verses show Jesus being referred to as an Angel. Of course Christ is higher than other angels, and is subordinate only to God.

Of course, this won't stop people from believing what they want to believe whether it tallies with the Bible or not. The danger for such persons is that they imply they know more than God.

Wrong.

This is the JW stance on this matter not the TRUTH from scripture.

The Bible says different, Jesus Christ is not Angel Michael.

And please tell me why this was not an original part of the JW teachings, it was only added later on.

frosbel:

Wrong.

This is the JW stance on this matter not the TRUTH from scripture.

The Bible says different, Jesus Christ is not Angel Michael.

And please tell me why this was not an original part of the JW teachings, it was only added later on.

It's surprising that you still comment on this thread. Your inability to offer any meaningful response to all the scriptures listed which clearly showed Jesus preexisted is disappointing. Ignore the scriptures and run away all you want, the biblical facts will always remain.

^^^

Have we not overflogged this issue, or do you think I want to spend the rest of my life on Nairaland .


Jesus Christ pre-existed in the mind of GOD from the beginning of creation for the salvation of mankind. He was indeed always on the mind of God and this was made known through prophecies, psalms and other parts of scripture that pointed to this great event that was to happen at a future date.

Your problem is understanding bible language and the context of scripture.


Jesus was manifest in the flesh at the right time according to the Word of GOD and was birthed as the SON of GOD not as an angel incarnated as a MAN. This is just plain heresy.


I don't really want to get dragged into endless debates, suffice me to say that only 0.01% of Christians hold this strange view of Jesus as angel Michael.

It is totally false.

frosbel: ^^^

Have we not overflogged this issue, or do you think I want to spend the rest of my life on Nairaland .


Jesus Christ pre-existed in the mind of GOD from the beginning of creation for the salvation of mankind. He was indeed always on the mind of God and this was made known through prophecies, psalms and other parts of scripture that pointed to this great event that was to happen at a future date.

Your problem is understanding bible language and the context of scripture.


Jesus was manifest in the flesh at the right time according to the Word of GOD and was birthed as the SON of GOD not as an angel incarnated as a MAN. This is just plain heresy.


I don't really want to get dragged into endless debates, suffice me to say that only 0.01% of Christians hold this strange view of Jesus as angel Michael.

It is totally false.

No way all these scriptures means Jesus existed only in God's mind before he was born:

John 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"".

And the popularity of a belief is no proof of it's correctness, otherwise you would believe the vastly more popular Trinity.
The Bible sorely is the source of true belief, not popularity.

I do agree we are overflogging it- true, some people will never accept what stares them in the face for whatever personal reasons. No point discussing it further.

This thread. .

Todaynatoday: Oluwa, Chineke, Ubangiji, Osanoboa, Abasi, God!!!!!!!!
What is going on here? 27 pages and still no conclusion!!! *mhen i've gats to un-follow this thread. So much confusion*

This @2dayna2day don finish me with laugh here ooo

frosbel:

Wrong.

This is the JW stance on this matter not the TRUTH from scripture.

The Bible says different, Jesus Christ is not Angel Michael.

And please tell me why this was not an original part of the JW teachings, it was only added later on.

Bros...if there is anything wrong is the blind eyes you have been keeping to those Scriptures that Proved Christ pre-existance.

TroGunn:

It's surprising that you still comment on this thread. Your inability to offer any meaningful response to all the scriptures listed which clearly showed Jesus preexisted is disappointing. Ignore the scriptures and run away all you want, the biblical facts will always remain.

I wouldn't have say it better.....honestly @Frosbel fall my hand for this thread.

All He can say is *WRONG* ! haba na so so wrong you dey see bros...?

pastormustwacc:
By the power vested in me as the original creator of the thread, i will now declare this thread closed before them kill me with orisi-risi theories!

You neva see anything oo, stay here and tell us what you learnt so far from this thread you created. By the way, Wetin be oritsi-oritsi? Na the Scripture proves?
I trust no.....

frosbel: ^^^

Have we not overflogged this issue, or do you think I want to spend the rest of my life on Nairaland .


Jesus Christ pre-existed in the mind of GOD from the beginning of creation for the salvation of mankind. He was indeed always on the mind of God and this was made known through prophecies, psalms and other parts of scripture that pointed to this great event that was to happen at a future date.

Your problem is understanding bible language and the context of scripture.


Jesus was manifest in the flesh at the right time according to the Word of GOD and was birthed as the SON of GOD not as an angel incarnated as a MAN. This is just plain
heresy.


I don't really want to get dragged into endless debates, suffice me to say that only
0.01% of Christians hold this strange view of Jesus as angel Michael.

It is totally false.

God mind? So you are gradually accepting His existance?
Frosbel........ e no go ta, you go finally accept those scriptures just as they are.

plappville:
You neva see anything oo, stay here and tell us what you learnt so far from this thread you created. By the way, Wetin be oritsi-oritsi? Na the Scripture proves?
I trust no.....

Well. . . . .i have learnt one thing here - and that is the fact that people interprete scriptures in many oritsi-ritsi ways. . .

true2god: My question to u is dis, do u accept all what watchtower is teaching u today as nothing but the truth? I guess your answer to this question is YES in the affirmative.

If watchtower comes tomorrow and teach a slightly different thing (if anoda light gets brighter), against what u hav been tradtionally taught as 'the bible truth', will u accept it without question?

my friend, it looks like you have stagnated because of this your "watchtower" complains?

Please have a life!

That is why it is not good for one to be fixated on "hurting" others.

Imagined your contribution on this thread?

You have been nothing more than a nuisance.

Please have "a life", so that you can move on on.
Peace

Todaynatoday: Oluwa, Chineke, Ubangiji, Osanoboa, Abasi, God!!!!!!!!
What is going on here? 27 pages and still no conclusion!!! *mhen i've gats to un-follow this thread. So much confusion*

what contrary evidence do you have for this statement?

Are you a trinitarian? If yes, then, you are already an old story.

Evidence may not work on you unless you are "hunger" for truth.
Peace

plappville:

God mind? So you are gradually accepting His existance?
Frosbel........ e no go ta, you go finally accept those scriptures just as they are.

Well I don't look at scriptures from the perspective of any church or institution. I look at scriptures afresh and according to the word of GOD.

Why should JW be correct, why not the SDA sects who do not believe that Angel Michael was Jesus, what about the 95% of other sects that do not hold this view ? Why must we conform to the JW point of view ?


Sorry , you can follow the guidelines and manuals of your sects, I have no such obligation, I simply read the bible and accept what it says.

TroGunn:

No way all these scriptures means Jesus existed only in God's mind before he was born:

John 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"".

And the popularity of a belief is no proof of it's correctness, otherwise you would believe the vastly more popular Trinity.
The Bible sorely is the source of true belief, not popularity.

I do agree we are overflogging it- true, some people will never accept what stares them in the face for whatever personal reasons. No point discussing it further.

i dont know why you still bother yourself with frosbel on this thread?

Left to me his posting here is insignificant and and does not add value to this thread.

truthislight:

my friend, it looks like you have stagnated because of this your "watchtower" complains?

Please have a life!

That is why it is not good for one to be fixated on "hurting" others.

Imagined your contribution on this thread?

You have been nothing more than a nuisance.

Please have "a life", so that you can move on on.
Peace

My question to u is not bible based u knw. Its just a honest man-to-man question and no offence. I still ask u, do u believe that all wat watchtower is teaching u as at now is true? If yes, dats ok. I am puttin it to u dat at least 7% of wat they r telling u today as bible truth will definitly be nuliffied as false in 15yrs time (wen the light becomes brighter).

And if u want to drag me into JW doctrinal changes over the yrs i will gladly give u many instances where they have changed their doctrine, or go back to doctrines\teachings the formally interprete in different ways.

I am not here talking about xmas, birthday, easter, or new yr celebrations.

Remeber that in the original JW teachin Jesus was not arch-angel michael as it is presently promoted by watchtower.

TroGunn:

The conclusion is as clear as day.

Clearly Archangel is Jesus Christ - same voice, same specific actions is Jesus and Archangel . Other bible verses show Jesus being referred to as an Angel. Of course Christ is higher than other angels, and is subordinate only to God.

Of course, this won't stop people from believing what they want to believe whether it tallies with the Bible or not. The danger for such persons is that they imply they know more than God.

This is a rehearsed response from ur kingdom hall as u guys are usually drilled to response in ur assembly anytime a question or argument is possed to u guys.
This 'truth' can only be sold to the members of ur organization cos its a biased organizational interpretation working and perfectin proof against the 'trinitarians' or the 'christendom' as ur pple will always put it.

Ther is no specific verse in the bible where u can quote and close ur bible to tell a lay man the Jesus is an angel.

ralfo85:

Maybe we should go back to properly understanding the purpose of that statement by paul. It was not meant to prove that Jesus was not an Angel, but that he has surpassed the angels by decree of God and has attained a loftier position. YOU may read the same Hebrews 1 from verse 1, or better still just from verse 4.
The words in verse 5 are a quotation from Psalms 2:7 (Psalm 2:7 New International Version (NIV)7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.)
The tone of the passage suggests a change of status, like an adoption. Thus Paul could infer that Jesus attained a change of status and has now attained a position that is unique and makes him different from the angels. He is now God's son has be given the power and authority that only the "only begotten son of God" could have.

Paul was encouraging the hebrew christians through these arguments to show them that faith in Jesus vital for there salvation, and that all that he said about himself was sure to come true. Reading Hebrews 2:1,2 makes this fact clearer, where he states that if all the words God spoke through angels came true (facts that they the Hebrew Christians have evidence of since they were of jewish background), would the declarations of God through his only begotten son not come true? If they believed in the angels, it would be unreasonable to lose faith in Jesus given that he was (is)God's own son, not just a messanger (like the angels)

Pauls words don't prove that Jesus was not an angel.

I am sorry if u give this response in a comprehension passage (let assume dat the first chapters of hebrew comes out in waec) u will score F9 cos u already form or had a personal opinion on the passage and definitely not the author's opinion.

The book of Hebrew nullifies all ur attepmts to imposed a wrong interpretation to the person of christ. No offence.

'...for unto which of the ANGELS DID GOD EVER SAY' (by simple logic the verse is referring to all the angels). Any attempts to read another meaning to dis simple english\sentence is both biased and mischievous.

@true2god are you a female?
Who was the Angel of the Lord Paul reffered to?
Who was the Captain of the Lords host that Joshua worshiped? Remeber (no man has ever seen God)
Who was the Angel of the lord that Yahweh sent to follow the Isaelites that God warned them not to provoked him, that if they dothis "Angel that bears Gods name will not forgive thier transgressions? Who was the Angel that came to Help angel Gabriel?
The great price? Are you suggesting There are two being playing this role?
The Angel that is called "Wonderful" the Angel of the Lord that has redeemed saved Israel and also called thier Savior? Who who? If you have a better understanding why have you been skiping all these scriptures presented to you? Are you scared to treat them? Are we not here to learn? Please scroll back and enlighten us instead if blablaring like a female here.

plappville: @true2god are you a female?

u want marry am?

true2god: My question to u is not bible based u knw. Its just a honest man-to-man question and no offence. I still ask u, do u believe that all wat watchtower is teaching u as at now is true? If yes, dats ok. I am puttin it to u dat at least 7% of wat they r telling u today as bible truth will definitly be nuliffied as false in 15yrs time (wen the light becomes brighter).

And if u want to drag me into JW doctrinal changes over the yrs i will gladly give u many instances where they have changed their doctrine, or go back to doctrines\teachings the formally interprete in different ways.

I am not here talking about xmas, birthday, easter, or new yr celebrations.

Remeber that in the original JW teachin Jesus was not arch-angel michael as it is presently promoted by watchtower.

if it was in the 17/1800c that someone came up to say that the bible does not teach/support christmas celebration you would have burnt such a person on a stake.

But today, those you burnt on a state have been proven to be on the right rather than your like.

If we are to consider the entering of God's kingdom on such basis, "your likes" will have miss out cause you today have come to believe that christmas has no biblical basis but pegan and had thrived in tradition.

But you and your kind dont/and will never learn.

I hope some people will not have to reward themselves with everlasting life at the end.