truthislight:
the "angel of the covanant is Jesus christ. QED.

Hmnn

BARRISTERS: @Boomark


are you saying that To which of the angels did He ever say "You are my son...?"

is an affirmation? my brother it is an open sentence! and that goes for 'the unique first spirit creature and angel/messenger jesus christ' unique in the sense that there cannot be 2 of such angel/messenger before he obtained the superior name, who obtained/inherit a superior name that elevates him above others! ok? can we debate that?

see Ray foucher comment on that, he is not a JW

[size=14pt]"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."[/size] (1Pet 3:22)
[size=16pt]Angels are subject to Jesus not to another angel. Calling Jesus by the name "Michael the archangel" is not degrading as some think. It no more makes Him an ordinary angel than calling him the "Lamb of God" makes Him an animal. He is not "an" angel, rather He is "the head of" the angels.[/size] Compare:

"For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." Psalms 91:11

[size=14pt]"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?[/size] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb 1:13-14)

To which of the angels did He ever say "You are my son...?"

A rhetorical question is a figure
of speech in the form of a
question that is asked in order
to make a point and without
the expectation of a reply.[1]
The question is used as a
rhetorical device, posed for the
sake of encouraging its listener
to consider a message or
viewpoint. Though these are
technically questions, they do
not always require a question
mark.
For example, the question
"Can't you do anything right?"
is asked not to gain information
about the ability of the person
being spoken to, but rather to
insinuate that the person
always fails.

Source
[url]en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question[/url]

Na wa o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Quotes

"The effectiveness of rhetorical questions in argument comes from their dramatic quality. They suggest dialogue, especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage. They are not always impassioned; they may be mildly ironical or merely argumentative: but they are always to some extent dramatic, and, if used to excess, they tend to give one’s style a theatrical air."

based on the above, ''playing two parts on the stage'' ''suggesting dialogue'' the rhetorical questio in Hebrews 1:5,14 in our argument comes from their ''dramatic quality'' how? jesus became better in a dramatic way! he was made a man (less than the angel) then he obtain the name that fired him over every creation 'jesus christ'
so the rhetoric drama in this case rest on verse 4 of heb 1;

Hebrews 1:4
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

can you see that this rhetoric question is of dramatic use? you may find it hard to accept because of your mind's positioning, but thats no problem, it would be superflous if after reffering to jesus as an 'angel of covenant' in malachi 3:1 then the question 'to which of the angels did he ever say' is not ''impassioned'' but rather ''playing two parts on the stage'' and the other stage part is within the context; hebrew 1:4.


thanks for pointing this out!

So he is an angel then?

BARRISTERS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Quotes

"The effectiveness of rhetorical questions in argument comes from their dramatic quality. They suggest dialogue, especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage. They are not always impassioned; they may be mildly ironical or merely argumentative: but they are always to some extent dramatic, and, if used to excess, they tend to give one’s style a theatrical air."

based on the above, ''playing two parts on the stage'' ''suggesting dialogue'' the rhetorical questio in Hebrews 1:5,14 in our argument comes from their ''dramatic quality'' how? jesus became better in a dramatic way! he was made a man (less than the angel) then he obtain the name that fired him over every creation 'jesus christ'
so the rhetoric drama in this case rest on verse 4 of heb 1;

Hebrews 1:4
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

can you see that this rhetoric question is of dramatic use? you may find it hard to accept because of your mind's positioning, but thats no problem, it would be superflous if after reffering to jesus as an 'angel of covenant' in malachi 3:1 then the question 'to which of the angels did he ever say' is not ''impassioned'' but rather ''playing two parts on the stage'' and the other stage part is within the context; hebrew 1:4.


thanks for pointing this out!

d wiki d quote said one plays two parts of a stage usually when one asks and answers himself! This isnt the case in heb 1, paul doesnt ask and answers his question, he isnt playing two parts of a stage.
Just d way "can't u do good?" implys d subject fails in doing good so does "to which of the angels has God ever said "..."? Imply that he has never said it to anyone!

BARRISTERS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Quotes

"The effectiveness of rhetorical questions in argument comes from their dramatic quality. They suggest dialogue, especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage. They are not always impassioned; they may be mildly ironical or merely argumentative: but they are always to some extent dramatic, and, if used to excess, they tend to give one’s style a theatrical air."

based on the above, ''playing two parts on the stage'' ''suggesting dialogue'' the rhetorical questio in Hebrews 1:5,14 in our argument comes from their ''dramatic quality'' how? jesus became better in a dramatic way! he was made a man (less than the angel) then he obtain the name that fired him over every creation 'jesus christ'
so the rhetoric drama in this case rest on verse 4 of heb 1;

Hebrews 1:4
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

can you see that this rhetoric question is of dramatic use? you may find it hard to accept because of your mind's positioning, but thats no problem, it would be superflous if after reffering to jesus as an 'angel of covenant' in malachi 3:1 then the question 'to which of the angels did he ever say' is not ''impassioned'' but rather ''playing two parts on the stage'' and the other stage part is within the context; hebrew 1:4.


thanks for pointing this out!

You're welcome.

WRONG!!

Your big barristerish english will not confuse me.

See what is meant by dramatic quality of a rhetoric question. Barristers(b) and within barristers (wb). Assuming you have suffered and later made it without your friends coming to your aid when you needed them. The drama:

b: which of them came to my aid when i needed help?

wb: non

b: which of them carried me in his car when i was trekking from lagos to kaduna?

wb: non

you don't expect any of you friends to answer those questions because the facts are already there. *If any of your friends had helped you, asking such question will be meaningless.*

back to Hebrew.

To which of the angels did He say: "You are my son...."? Non. If not the question wount have been asked.

@ubenedictus and
@Boomark(pls ignore the part that concerns ube and trinity i knew you are not one)

d wiki d quote said one plays two parts of a stage usually when one asks and answers himself! This isnt the case in heb 1, paul doesnt ask and answers his question, he isnt playing two parts of a stage.

firstly, i dont expect you to see the answer expecially when you are determined to reason from the trinitarian angle! and that has led you into this mistake of using a wrong gramatical example (erotema) in describing my own figure of reasoning (anthypophora)below

Just d way "can't u do good?" implys d subject fails in doing good so does "to which of the angels has God ever said "..."? Imply that he has never said it to anyone!

i will advice that You need to understand what 'rhetorical questions' inludes and all the different usages,
"can't u do good?" or ''why are you so stupid''? are examples of [erotema];'The technical term for rhetorical questions in general' and the aim is to ''affirm or deny a point strongly by asking it as a question''. no one is disputing that! im not making a case for [erotema]



we have other kinds of rhetorical questions, in which one asks the opinion of those listening, called [anacoenosis]. and many more......!

rather,

the one im reffering to,as quoted in the wiki, thus ''especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage'' is known as ; [anthypophora]

Anthypophora is a figure of reasoning in which one asks and then immediately answers one's own questions (or raises and then settles imaginary objections). Reasoning aloud.

Anthypophora sometimes takes the form of asking the audience or one's adversary what can be said on a matter, and thus can involve both anacoenosis and apostrophe.

rhetorical uses, the question as a grammatical form has important rhetorical dimensions;
examples are;

# Is the Republican party the best? I think not. Why else were they beaten? Because they are no longer in touch with the people.

# Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman--I am a better one..." II Cor. 11:22-23.

so also,[size=14pt] verse 4 and 5 of hebrews 1, were to be read altogether [/i]this way [/size](see the bridge between vs4 and 5 in the first word in vs5 [size=16pt]'for'[/size])the answer is contained in verse 4, fortunately provided by the same writer;

hebrews 1:4-5;

4, Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5, [size=16pt]For[/size] 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?

[size=14pt][i]''To which of the angels did He say: "You are my son...."?[/size] is criminally seperated from a context,thereby rendering it impotent.

the point here is that the answer is within the context and the writer presents it in a technical way, hence the argument!

Anthypophora uses the principle of rhetorical questions to ask questions which the speaker wishes to answer. as you see above.
Boomark

Your big barristerish english will not confuse me.

im dying with laughter here what is 'barristerish english' ? anyway i have said earlier, you dont need to agree, but we are to test every spirit, and that is what we are doing.thanks

Ubenedictus: Hehehe, so palp na woman and e dey ask wether anoda person na woman

You no kn say i be femme before? I have no reason to hid my gender.

Boomark:

v3 ending and v4 happened when he ascended to heaven.

v5 is a question asked after he has been begotten. To which of the angels did He ever say "You are my son...?" will your answer be angel Michael? It is obvious God did not say that to an angel.

Have you ignored the fact that He went through some changes to obtained a better name etc etc...this made Him unique among The other Host of God.
Remeber, God cannot change as the bible says, Jesus went through several changes. Now to you, if Jesus was not God before He came to earth and was not That Angel of
the Lord, then who was He?
8 But to the Son He says: "Your
throne, O God, is forever and
ever; A scepter of righteousness
is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness
and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has
anointed You With the oil of
gladness more than "Your
companions."

BARRISTERS: @ubenedictus and
@Boomark(pls ignore the part that concerns ube and trinity i knew you are not one)



firstly, i dont expect you to see the answer expecially when you are determined to reason from the trinitarian angle! and that has led you into this mistake of using a wrong gramatical example (erotema) in describing my own figure of reasoning (anthypophora)below


i will advice that You need to understand what 'rhetorical questions' inludes and all the


different usages,
"can't u do good?" or ''why are you so stupid''? are examples of [erotema];'The technical term for rhetorical questions in general' and the aim is to ''affirm or deny a point
strongly by asking it as a question''. no one is disputing that! im not making a case for [erotema]

we have other kinds of rhetorical questions, in which one asks the opinion of those listening, called [anacoenosis]. and many more......!

rather,

the one im reffering to,as quoted in the wiki, thus ''especially when the speaker both
asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage'' is known as ; [anthypophora]

Anthypophora is a figure of reasoning in which one asks and then immediately answers one's own questions (or raises and then settles imaginary objections).
Reasoning aloud.

Anthypophora sometimes takes the form of asking the audience or one's adversary what
can be said on a matter, and thus can involve both anacoenosis and apostrophe.

rhetorical uses, the question as a grammatical form has important rhetorical dimensions;
examples are;

# Is the Republican party the best? I think not. Why else were they beaten? Because they are no longer in touch with the people.

# Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman--I am a better one..." II Cor.
11:22-23.

so also,[size=14pt] verse 4 and 5 of hebrews 1, were to be read altogether [/i]this way
[/size](see the bridge between vs4 and 5 in the first word in vs5 [size=16pt]'for'[/size])the answer is contained in verse 4, fortunately provided by the same writer;

hebrews 1:4-5;

4, Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5, [size=16pt]For[/size] 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?

[size=14pt][i]''To which of the angels did He say: "You are my son...."?[/size] is criminally seperated from a context,thereby rendering it impotent.

the point here is that the answer is within the context and the writer presents it in a technical way, hence the argument!

Anthypophora uses the principle of rhetorical questions to ask questions which the speaker wishes to answer. as you see above.

Boomark

im dying with laughter here what is 'barristerish english' ? anyway i have said earlier, you dont need to agree, but we are to test every spirit, and that is what we are doing.thanks

Honestly, i do not think @boomark need all these to in order to accept plain scriptures.
He has some argument skills, when He do not want to agree to plain scripture, He will then provoke arguement as usual

@plappvile

Honestly, i do not think @boomark need all these to in order to accept plain scriptures.
He has some argument skills, when He do not want to agree to plain scripture, He will then provoke arguement as usual

are you holding a brief on boomark's behalf?, let him answer,im interested in his response! i think he is more reasonable in his contributions, and very easy to work with.

BARRISTERS: @plappvile


are you holding a brief on boomark's behalf?, let him answer,im interested in his response! i think he is more reasonable in his contributions, and very easy to work with.

No sir, i rest/withdrew my opinion sir.

Peace.

@ plappville

No sir, i rest/withdrew my opinion sir.

Peace.

you are funny, im enjoying your work on other threads too, it seems that some people cant sustain this tread, im not reffering to boomark, but others, what do you observe?

plappville:

Have you ignored the fact that He went through some changes to obtained a better name etc etc...this made Him unique among The other Host of God.
Remeber, God cannot change as the bible says, Jesus went through several changes. Now to you, if Jesus was not God before He came to earth and was not That Angel of
the Lord, then who was He?
8 But to the Son He says: "Your
throne, O God, is forever and
ever; A scepter of righteousness
is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness
and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has
anointed You With the oil of
gladness more than "Your
companions."

Who are the elders in heaven? Are they angels? This will help you see what am thinking.

We are focusing at the point of "begottenation." when did the decree declared? "You are my Son...."

1 was it when he was above the angels b4 he came to the earth?

2 was he equal to the angels?

3 was it when he was made lower than the angels?

4 was it when he was glorified above the angels after his death?

I want you to tell me yourself, let me be sharpening my dagger.

Boomark:

Who are the elders in heaven? Are they angels? This will help you see what am thinking.

We are focusing at the point of "begottenation." when did the decree declared? "You are my Son...."

1 was it when he was above the angels b4 he came to the earth?

2 was he equal to the angels?

3 was it when he was made lower than the angels?

4 was it when he was glorified above the angels after his death?

I want you to tell me yourself, let me be sharpening my dagger.

The 24 elders are likely humans who will "reign with Christ" in heaven. - Rev 20: 4-6

Since begotten means to produce, originate or bring forth, Christ was begotten at his creation, obviously as a spirit being, being the sole direct creation of the Father. This firstborn Son was different from all other sons of God, because all the other sons were created or begotten by Yahweh through that firstborn Son. - Colossians 1:15-20.
Note that this does not make Christ the Creator, since he was carrying out his Father's instructions. His Father is the sole Creator or source of all things. Christ was the agent used for creation after being created himself.

Christ's elevation, after his successful mission as a human relates to the titles he then received as prophesied in Isa 9:6. Though he was already only begotten Son by virtue of his being created first and also an archangel being a leader of angels, after his death as a human and resurection, God elevated him even further. Christ is indeed very mighty - only his Father Yahweh is mightier than him in all the universe.

.

TroGunn:

The 24 elders are likely humans who will "reign with Christ" in heaven. - Rev 20: 4-6

Since begotten means to produce, originate or bring forth, Christ was begotten at his creation, obviously as a spirit being, being the sole direct creation of the Father. This firstborn Son was different from all other sons of God, because all the other sons were created or begotten by Yahweh through that firstborn Son. - Colossians 1:15-20.
Note that this does not make Christ the Creator, since he was carrying out his Father's instructions. His Father is the sole Creator or source of all things. Christ was the agent used for creation after being created himself.

Christ's elevation, after his successful mission as a human relates to the titles he then received as prophesied in Isa 9:6. Though he was already only begotten Son by virtue of his being created first and also an archangel being a leader of angels, after his death as a human and resurection, God elevated him even further. Christ is indeed very mighty - only his Father Yahweh is mightier than him in all the universe.

Pls quote the isaiah 9:6 in full. And interprete its meaning properly.

true2god: Pls quote the isaiah 9:6 in full. And interprete its meaning properly.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace". - Isa 9:6.

The future child (as at Isaiah's time) will be elevated and will assume the following titles:

Wonderful Counselor - Jesus was to be a great teacher. He astounded people with his teaching style and counseling.

Mighty God - Jesus was to be a Mighty God. This is quite apt considering he is subordinate only to the One Almighty God Yahweh. He remains a servant or messenger of Yahweh though, and is above all otherYahweh's creations.

Eternal Father - He will be immortal, but he obviously had a beginning. Yahweh has no beginning. Being as Yahweh makes him head of Church, technically he can be called a Father out of respect.

Prince of Peace - He will be at the forefront of bringing real peace to humans and is a prince because his Father will make him king to rule for a 1000years before he hands back the Kingdom to his Father Yahweh (1 Cor 15: 24-28).

Nothing in Isa 9:6 elevates Jesus Christ to the same level as his Father Yahweh.

ijawkid:

And I asked you somÉtime ago what changes you've made ever since the witnesses have been singing into peoples ears that tithing,the trinity,the spurious hell fire dogma,the immortality of the soul,christians Éngaging in war and politics isn't for christians??...........

Have you stopped celebrating xmas even as it has been clearly proven as pagan times without number??.........have you??.................the witnesses come every time to your doors on dec 25 to debunk the folly of xmas,have you for once humbly made a little adjustment??..........

My brother Íf you were humble you should have been boldly giving rebuttals to those scriptures that were quoted rather you've been yapping about Watchtower..................

Ýou and your colleagues argued that the bible never ever called Jesus an ""angel"".......Lo and behold malachi came to the rescue...instead of trying to gulp in that truth,you rather resorted to adhominems.......

The difference between you and a JW is humility and a willingness to learn more from the scriptures rather than holding on to traditions that have no scriptural foundation..................

When you are ready to tackle the presented scriptures then I in person would be ready to discuss with you............

Malachi never called or interpreatwd Jesus as an angel, neither did any new testament apostle or teacher hold this view. Neither do 99% of oda xtain congregations held dis believe.

On ths issue of tithing, malachi 3:9 support dis doctrine. The same malachi u guys ar quotin ur bogus 'jesus=angel michael' (tho false) support tithing in the synagogue and yet u discard it wen u wanna discredit any organization dat holds contarry view to urs. Hw do expect the church to fund its varios activities in dis modern era? I believ u might be a financial expert and ur input in church financing will be welcome. Or do u prefare all churches printing and sellin magazines to finance their activities?

On the issue of trinity pls explain isiaiah 9:6, 1tim3:16, heb 1:8, John 1:1, den i will giv u my response.

On the issue of hell fire, did jesus warned of the dangers of hell fire? Did he give a story about the richman and lazarus to butres his point? Did mathew say anytin about hell fire and the final judgement? I need ur input?

On the immortality of the soul, i will giv u numeros bible verses dat talked about it soonest.

I knw u hav been taught in ur org. Dat bible doctrines are all dogmas, so im not surprised.

See my responses later.

furthermore;

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called [size=14pt]Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace"[/size]. - Isa 9:6.

bolded above, jesus christ (the name that fired him above every other name was not mentioned but concealed for a purpose)

jesus never elevate himself had it being he was the almighty God[size=14pt] but he was elevated [/size]by a 'superior father' who made him better than the angels only after he obtained 'the exelent name' (jesus);

heb 1:4;
4, Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name [/i]than they

what is contained in isiah 9:6 are mere fleet of titles,

[size=12pt]here is the real 'name' concealed from mere titles in OT especially isa 9:6;
[/size]
philipians 2:9-11

9 Wherefore [i]God also hath highly exalted him, and given him[b] a name which is above every name:[/b]

10 That at the name of [size=18pt]Jesus [/size]every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that [size=18pt]Jesus Christ is Lord[/size], to the glory of God the Father.

The title 'Mighty God' was used for jesus and ALMIGHTY GOD was for the father the creator, NOWHERE WAS ALMIGHTY GOD used for jesus!

Exudus 6:3;

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of[size=16pt] God Almighty[/size], but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them

other gods

the title God or god originally were in vowels in hebrews, so the issue of uppercase and lowercase were subject to debate.see wikipedia 'Gods name' but depending on how we value our Creator,as christians we choose to use uppercase for our cherished God Almighty as in exod. 6:3 above. while we also distinguish between Almighty God and jesus using Uppercase LORD (Almighty) in OT and lowercase 'lord'(jesus) respectively;

so when God said;
Exodus 20:3 "You shall have [b]no other gods [/b]before me

or when paul was reffered to a 'god' in acts 28:6

it shows that there exist other gods apart from the Almighty creator, hence Mighty God/god,we are not denying jesus as a mighty God since words like mighty angels too were used in the bible, but the word or title ALMIGHTY was never used for jesus, and besides, they are mere titles.

@true2God

Malachi never called or interpreatwd Jesus as an angel, neither did any new testament apostle or teacher hold this view. Neither do 99% of oda xtain congregations held dis believe.

with this statement above, you have lost your relevance on nairaland,infact you have lost relevance or being taken seriously since page (19) maybe you need bigger lenses or pretend,making forcefull denial in front of strong proofs below, see these bibles, some as old as your grandfathers (1899)

MALACHI 3:1

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and [size=14pt]the Lord[/size] whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, and the[size=16pt] Angel of the covenant,[/size] whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts". - DARBY

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, [size=16pt]and the Angel of the covenant[/size], whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts". - BBE - Bible in Basic English (modern english)

"BEHOLD, I send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me. And the Lord the Messiah, Whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; the [size=16pt]Messenger or Angel of the covenant,[/size] Whom you desire, behold, He shall come, says the Lord of hosts". - Amplified Bible.

can you see now with your olodo-agbero-ome-ita small brain?

even[size=18pt] see how animals are laughing at you[/size],because they knew that your lies are obvious,

BARRISTERS:
furthermore;


bolded above, jesus christ (the name that fired him above every other name was not mentioned but concealed for a purpose)

jesus never elevate himself had it being he was the almighty God[size=14pt] but he was elevated [/size]by a 'superior father' who made him better than the angels only after he obtained 'the exelent name' (jesus);

heb 1:4;
4, Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name [/i]than they

what is contained in isiah 9:6 are mere fleet of titles,

[size=12pt]here is the real 'name' concealed from mere titles in OT especially isa 9:6;
[/size]
philipians 2:9-11

9 Wherefore [i]God also hath highly exalted him, and given him[b] a name which is above every name:[/b]

10 That at the name of [size=18pt]Jesus [/size]every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that [size=18pt]Jesus Christ is Lord[/size], to the glory of God the Father.

The title 'Mighty God' was used for jesus and ALMIGHTY GOD was for the father the creator, NOWHERE WAS ALMIGHTY GOD used for jesus!

Exudus 6:3;

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of[size=16pt] God Almighty[/size], but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them

other gods

the title God or god originally were in vowels in hebrews, so the issue of uppercase and lowercase were subject to debate.see wikipedia 'Gods name' but depending on how we value our Creator,as christians we choose to use uppercase for our cherished God Almighty as in exod. 6:3 above. while we also distinguish between Almighty God and jesus using Uppercase LORD (Almighty) in OT and lowercase 'lord'(jesus) respectively;

so when God said;
Exodus 20:3 "You shall have [b]no other gods [/b]before me

or when paul was reffered to a 'god' in acts 28:6

it shows that there exist other gods apart from the Almighty creator, hence Mighty God/god,we are not denying jesus as a mighty God since words like mighty angels too were used in the bible, but the word or title ALMIGHTY was never used for jesus, and besides, they are mere titles.

So ur challenges here us dat Jesus was called mighty God and not almighty God so he is not God but an angel. An angel is called mighty God and u hav sense of reasoning to concur to dat. Dats bad of u cos im vry sure u neva study the bible independently but just quotin dogmas as taught u by WTS.

I doubt if ur barristership is not even questionable given ur style of reasonin. Anyway anyone can chose Bill Gate as his NL ID dat will not take away the fact that he might even hav a basic knowlegde of internet surfing.

BARRISTERS: @true2God



with this statement above, you have lost your relevance on nairaland,infact you have lost relevance or being taken seriously since page (19) maybe you need bigger lenses or pretend,making forcefull denial in front of strong proofs below, see these bibles, some as old as your grandfathers (1899)

MALACHI 3:1

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and [size=14pt]the Lord[/size] whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, and the[size=16pt] Angel of the covenant,[/size] whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts". - DARBY

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, [size=16pt]and the Angel of the covenant[/size], whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts". - BBE - Bible in Basic English (modern english)

"BEHOLD, I send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me. And the Lord the Messiah, Whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; the [size=16pt]Messenger or Angel of the covenant,[/size] Whom you desire, behold, He shall come, says the Lord of hosts". - Amplified Bible.

can you see now with your olodo-agbero-ome-ita small brain?

even[size=18pt] see how animals are laughing at you[/size],because they knew that your lies are obvious,

The problem u hav is dat virtually evry1 dat had had encounter wit u on nairaland has knwn u and ur level of reasoning. So im not shocked at any of ur post.

I still stand to be corrected, many authors rendered messengers as angels, even tho' they (the messangers are not partcularly angels) while others do not. Many bible translators never rendred this verse as angels 'of the covenant', most rendered it as 'messenger of the covenant'. John the baptist was also rendered (by some translations) as 'angel' as well in dis same verse and chapter of malachi. According ur ur reasoniing, John being rendered here as an angel is 'symbolic' or non literal but christ being renderec here as 'angel of the covenant' is literal. Take an instance, many guys call their wife\girl friend 'my angel', does dat make ladies\women\wives\girls angels? No.

U need to tink beyond d box most times; stop being irrational pls. The person of christ bears no ambiguity just dat the likes like u hav zeroed off ur mind to believ wishfully any doctrine passed acros to u without any sense of judgement or reasoning. Read the bible for ursef im sure ur opinion will be fine-tuned on dis subject matter.

The prophets of old renderd christ as mighty God (emphaticallly without ambiguity as broght in by watchtower org ), pslams quoted the father rendering the son thus:'your throne oh God is for ever and ever' . The father called the son 'God or mighty God' in some bible passages and not angel michael as u r being false made to believe.

Its unfortunate that foolishless and ignorance is no respect to any person or certificate.

BARRISTERS: @true2God



with this statement above, you have lost your relevance on nairaland,infact you have lost relevance or being taken seriously since page (19) maybe you need bigger lenses or pretend,making forcefull denial in front of strong proofs below, see these bibles, some as old as your grandfathers (1899)

MALACHI 3:1

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and [size=14pt]the Lord[/size] whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, and the[size=16pt] Angel of the covenant,[/size] whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts". - DARBY

"Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple, [size=16pt]and the Angel of the covenant[/size], whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts". - BBE - Bible in Basic English (modern english)

"BEHOLD, I send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me. And the Lord the Messiah, Whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; the [size=16pt]Messenger or Angel of the covenant,[/size] Whom you desire, behold, He shall come, says the Lord of hosts". - Amplified Bible.

can you see now with your olodo-agbero-ome-ita small brain?

even[size=18pt] see how animals are laughing at you[/size],because they knew that your lies are obvious,

Heb 1:5 reads 'for unto which of the angels said he(God) at any time, ''u r my Son, today have i beggoten u? And again, ''i will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son''.

Compare this verse with hw it was rendered in malachi u will understand better (if at all u hav the power of simple comprehension).

The problem with u is that WTS has beclouded ur sense or reasoning and judgement and its quite unfortunate. (I used to think u were logical and comprehend well but u always proved me wrong). If u dnt understand, the verse is simply tellin us dat at no time had God tell any angel (whether angel michael or not) ' u (Jesus) r my Son today hav i beggottn u'.

Ur willful misinterpretation of this simple verse (written in a very simple and understandable language) made me doubt ur integrity and honesty as a person. To justify ur mischief u start quotin encyclopedia and dictionary to nullify a simple verse dat, even a nursry sch pupil will easily grasped. Really dnt knw dat such pple still still exist. Its quite unfortunate.

TroGunn:

The 24 elders are likely humans who will "reign with Christ" in heaven. - Rev 20: 4-6

Since begotten means to produce, originate or bring forth, Christ was begotten at his creation, obviously as a spirit being, being the sole direct creation of the Father. This firstborn Son was different from all other sons of God, because all the other sons were created or begotten by Yahweh through that firstborn Son. - Colossians 1:15-20.
Note that this does not make Christ the Creator, since he was carrying out his Father's instructions. His Father is the sole Creator or source of all things. Christ was the agent used for creation after being created himself.

Christ's elevation, after his successful mission as a human relates to the titles he then received as prophesied in Isa 9:6. Though he was already only begotten Son by virtue of his being created first and also an archangel being a leader of angels, after his death as a human and resurection, God elevated him even further. Christ is indeed very mighty - only his Father Yahweh is mightier than him in all the universe.

I know all these things but i don't know him as an arch angel. That is what Hebrew said not.

Read Rev 4:4; 7:11; 14:3; 19:4 to see more about the 24 elders. Nothing in your quote suggest 24 elders will rule with Christ. In Rev 7:13 one of the elders explained a revelation to john.

Answer from my questions. They are very straight forward questions. Or is there anything you want to adjust in the questions 1-4 i asked?

@true2God

So ur challenges here us dat Jesus was called mighty God and not almighty God so he is not God but an angel. An angel is called mighty God and u hav sense of reasoning to concur to dat. Dats bad of u cos im vry sure u neva study the bible independently but just quotin dogmas as taught u by WTS.

WTS hurts you a lot, isnt it?

but see those who are jws

see these write up below from[b] a non JW;[/b]

http://www.jesus-resurrection.info/michael-archangel.html Ray Foucher

Michael the Archangel
(Part 4 of 4)

Who is Michael the archangel? The being referred to as Michael is mentioned by that name five times in the Bible: Dan 10:13, 10:21, 12:1, Jude 9 and Rev 12:7.

This is part 4 of a study to answer the question: "Who is Michael the Archangel?" For background, we have looked at a few related topics and have established that:

angels are messengers and not always what we regard as angelic beings - Part 1 - What are Angels?
there is only one archangel and he goes by the name of Michael - Part 2 - What are Archangels?
angels are His (Jesus') angels; He is the head of them - Part 3 - Jesus and Angels
The name Michael, in Hebrew, has the meaning of "who is like God?" It is both a question and a challenge. Satan's rebellion is essentially an attempt to install himself on the throne of God and "be like the most high"

"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa 14:14)
Thus, the name Michael is most fitting for Him who has taken on the task of disproving Satan's charges, and vindicating the character of God and his right to the throne. In each of the five uses of Michael (only one of which uses the phrase "Michael the archangel", notice how the scene involves Christ in conflict with Satan. Let's look at each one.

First Use of Michael

"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." (Dan 10:13)
The "me" of this verse is likely the angel Gabriel - who is never referred to as an archangel. He had appeared to Daniel previously to explain things to him (Dan 8:16-17, 9:21-22). It cannot be Michael because Michael is spoken of by Gabriel as another individual.

"The prince of the kingdom of Persia" was Satan directing the literal kings of Persia. A literal king would not be able to withstand the angel Gabriel for twenty days, only a being of the same order could. Before his fall, Satan was a covering cherub (Eze 28:14) close in position to God. He led a rebellion among the angels against God and was influential enough to draw one third of them to his side (Rev 12:4, 7-9).

Regarding the phrase "One of the chief princes," the KJV marginal note says "or the first."

"Michael ... came to help me." Only someone more powerful than Gabriel or Satan could resolve this situation. It was not any angel that came but Michael the archangel, the head of the angels. The phrase "and I remained" is translated by the NIV as "because I was detained." Michael had to come to Gabriel's aid.

All three Old Testament references to Michael refer to him by using the word prince(s):

"Michael, one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13)
"Michael your prince" (Dan 10:21)
"Michael ... the great prince" (Dan 12:1)
The marginal note for "one of" in Dan 10:13 is "Or, the first." So He is not one of a number of equals the thought of which disturbs some people.

Is Christ referred to elsewhere using the term prince? In vision, Daniel refers to the prince of the host (Dan 8:11). What is the host that he is the prince of? The word host is used in a number of ways, often meaning simply a great multitude. It is sometimes used in reference to angels:

"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying," (Luke 2:13). It would appear that the host of which Michael is the prince are the angels.
Being Michael the archangel or head of the angels is equivalant to being the prince of the host of the angels.

Joshua 5:13-15 mentions a being who refers to himself as "captain of the host of the Lord." The margin says "prince" (v14). "Joshua fell on his face ... and did worship." Only God can rightly receive worship (v15). "And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy..." Moses was told the same thing when he appeared before the Lord in the burning bush (Ex 3:5, Acts 7:33). Note who was speaking to him:

"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. (Exo 3:2)
In Gabriel's explanation of the vision he refers to this same being as the "Prince of princes" (Dan 8:25). Prince of princes is a reference to deity and is similar to:

Lord of lords: Ps 136:3, Deut 10:17, 1Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14, 19:16
God of gods: Ps 136:2, Deut 10:17
King of kings: 1Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14, 19:16
These verses include unquestionable references to Jesus. He is referred to as a prince in other ways in the New Testament:

"And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." (Acts 3:15)
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31)

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," (Rev 1:5)
Second Use of Michael

"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth exerts himself with me in these things, but Michael your prince." (Dan 10:21)
Gabriel is still speaking and referring to Michael as another being. "These things" refers to v20 "...and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia..." Again, a conflict with Satan is being described.

Third Use of Michael

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." (Dan 12:1)
It is Christ who stands for us, who offers to stand in our place in the judgment. The phrase "written in the book" connects this with the judgment. "Thy people shall be delivered" is referring to God's people being delivered from the powers of darkness in a time of great conflict, a "time of trouble such as never was."

Fourth Use of Michael

This is the only Biblical reference to use the exact term "Michael the archangel:"

"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." (Jude 1:9)
Again, there is a conflict between Christ and Satan, this time over the body of Moses who was buried by God Himself (Deut 34:5-6). We know that Christ was successful in raising Moses from the dead because Moses later appeared at the transfiguration (Matt 17:3). Some have argued that since Michael the archangel said "The Lord rebuke thee" he was calling on the Lord to do the rebuking and therefore could not be the Lord himself. However, Zech 3:2 shows that this is not necessarily so as the speaker here, obviously the Lord, says the same thing:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee... " (Zech 3:2)
The confusion can be cleared up when we allow the Bible to defin its own terms. Who would contend with Satan for the body of Moses but Jesus? No angel has the power to raise him from the dead.

Fifth Use of Michael

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels," (Rev 12:7)
This verse says that the angels are Michael's angels. He is obviously in charge of them in some way and could even be understood to have ownership of them. Peter, talking of Jesus, says:

"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (1Pet 3:22)
Angels are subject to Jesus not to another angel. Calling Jesus by the name "Michael the archangel" is not degrading as some think. It no more makes Him an ordinary angel than calling him the "Lamb of God" makes Him an animal. He is not "an" angel, rather He is "the head of" the angels. Compare:

"For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." Psalms 91:11

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb 1:13-14)

olodo like you

Boomark:

I know all these things but i don't know him as an arch angel. That is what Hebrew said not.

Read Rev 4:4; 7:11; 14:3; 19:4 to see more about the 24 elders. Nothing in your quote suggest 24 elders will rule with Christ. In Rev 7:13 one of the elders explained a revelation to john.

Answer from my questions. They are very straight forward questions. Or is there anything you want to adjust in the questions 1-4 i asked?

The 24 elders have crowns, so it's reasonable to believe that they are involved in rulership with Christ. Jesus said : "To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." - Revelation 3:21. Rev 20:6 also says - "Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years".

I answered all your questions about when Jesus was begotten - at his creation, before anything else was created. Since you seem to want it in your format, here it is:


Who are the elders in heaven? Are they angels? This will help you see what am thinking. - No, they were humans who are in heaven to reign with Christ as he promised.

We are focusing at the point of "begottenation." when did the decree declared? "You are my Son...."

1 was it when he was above the angels b4 he came to the earth? - Jesus was only begotten or produced at his direct creation by God, before anything else was created.- Col1:15,16

2 was he equal to the angels? - He was higher, had the role of Archangel or leader of angels, handled the key and difficult tasks, at the forefront of helping God's people, was God's agent used in creation.

3 was it when he was made lower than the angels? - Jesus was only begotten or produced - at his direct creation by God, before anything else was created.- Col1:15,16

4 was it when he was glorified above the angels after his death? - Jesus was only begotten or produced - at his direct creation by God, before anything else was created.- Col1:15,16

true2God failed predictions

true2God

Malachi never called or interpreatwd Jesus as an angel, neither did any new testament apostle or teacher hold this view. Neither do 99% of oda xtain congregations held dis believe.

true2God changing gear and making u turn, he agreed that some bible translations actually rendered malachi 3:1 as angels

I still stand to be corrected, many authors rendered messengers as angels

[size=14pt]what a doom prophet true2God! chai![/size]

true2god: Malachi never called or interpreatwd Jesus as an angel, neither did any new testament apostle or teacher hold this view. Neither do 99% of oda xtain congregations held dis believe.

On ths issue of tithing, malachi 3:9 support dis doctrine. The same malachi u guys ar quotin ur bogus 'jesus=angel michael' (tho false) support tithing in the synagogue and yet u discard it wen u wanna discredit any organization dat holds contarry view to urs. Hw do expect the church to fund its varios activities in dis modern era? I believ u might be a financial expert and ur input in church financing will be welcome. Or do u prefare all churches printing and sellin magazines to finance their activities?

On the issue of trinity pls explain isiaiah 9:6, 1tim3:16, heb 1:8, John 1:1, den i will giv u my response.

On the issue of hell fire, did jesus warned of the dangers of hell fire? Did he give a story about the richman and lazarus to butres his point? Did mathew say anytin about hell fire and the final judgement? I need ur input?

On the immortality of the soul, i will giv u numeros bible verses dat talked about it soonest.

I knw u hav been taught in ur org. Dat bible doctrines are all dogmas, so im not surprised.

See my responses later.

bearing in mind that you are not new on this forum am very surprise that you did not show your face one bit to defend this your "doctrine" while it was being trashed out in this forum which i believed an honest person will have done, but no, you did not show your face then, but see you here shamelessly posting doctrines That most regulars here have already upgraded upon and are moving on.

What is really happening to you?

Has your hatred for the JW blinded you this much that you are still being blinded up to this level?

I am really having pity for you.

true2god: So ur challenges here us dat Jesus was called mighty God and not almighty God so he is not God but an angel. An angel is called mighty God and u hav sense of reasoning to concur to dat. Dats bad of u cos im vry sure u neva study the bible independently but just quotin dogmas as taught u by WTS.

i pity for you really and what you stand for.

I hope you will not die of guilty conscience due to the lies you and your cohorts have posted/said on NL to defamed JW when there were no people to adequately defend the truth.

But see the same you st.pidly messing yourself up without an iota of bible truth/knowledge.

Your cry on this thread is a function of a troubled conscience and it will remained so until you start begging God for forgiveness for the lies you have stood for on this forum against the truth of God's word the bible.

Were there is light darkness cannot stand.

Your are a disgrace.

I just hope you will not have a heart problem the way you are going.