McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Dodging the evidence?Lol I didn't copy and paste anything online. Nice try dodging the evidence I presented
I do not have a dog in this fight.
I am merely curious the source of your evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
JW's Jesus is Archangel Michael?
- Thread starter Yoshua
- Start date
I do not have a dog in this fight.
I am merely curious the source of your evidence.
The Bible (what it says) and studying the Topic
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
If you do not want to reveal your source, that is fine.The Bible (what it says) and studying the Topic
I am not interested in Pigeon Chess.
Have a nice day.
He writes it. It is his own work.
Unification
Well-Known Member
Sorry JayJayDee, but the old Jehovahs Witness argument that Thomas was "surprised" is completely False. Thomas was not expressing surprise at seeing the risen Christ when he called Him "My Lord and My God." If Thomas had done this he would have been guilty of taking Gods name in vain. Jews of the first century believed that any careless use of Gods name amounted to blasphemy. If Thomas HAD taken Gods name in vain, Jesus surely would have rebuked him for doing so. But not only did Jesus NOT rebuke Thomas, He COMMENDED Thomas for finally coming to believe He was who He said He was (both "Lord" and "God") Jesus affirmed Thomas, not corrected Him. No created being could ever allow such words to be addressed to him personally. No angel, no prophet, no sane human being could ever allow himself to be addressed as both Lord and God. Yet Jesus not only accepts the words of Thomas but pronounces the blessings of faith upon them as well. For Thomas wasn't just calling Jesus "a god." He was calling Jesus "His Lord" and "His God." And again, if Jesus was not God almighty in the same sense the Father is, He surely would have said something like, "No-I am just a lesser god. Jehovah is the only true God. You must not put me in Jehovahs place. Only Jehovah can be called my Lord and my God." But Jesus said Nothing. Instead, as I said, He Commended Thomas for recognizing His True Identity
A return and coming metaphysically. Internally.
Unification
Well-Known Member
Has "the Christ" come and returned IN your flesh, INSIDE of you? Metaphysically? If not, you are all of those things you've listed above.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Sorry but my Jesus is real and his "coming" or more correctly his "manifestation" as judge and executioner is a visible event. (Luke 21:25-28; 2 Thess 1:6-9) Your "internal" stuff is a bit airy fairy to me...sorry.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
1. What is the common denominator in the bold statements above in reference to the term parousia? It requires the subject be physically present and seen by others. Hence Christ's words stand. There is no secret presence/coming. His "parousia" will be physical and seen by all. Just as the scriptures testify!
2. You're right about that. Once He comes [parousia], He is here to stay.
3. The days of Noah and the Son of Man are defined by the context as a period of time prior to experiencing the physical presence/arrival of the two subjects (the flood and Christ coming), during which the people were involved in sinful and careless behavior. No matter how you try to slice it, JD, it always goes back to one physical parousia.
4. Psa 110:1-2 states otherwise?? Firstly, where do you get everything I bolded from those two passages?? I don't see anything in Psa 110 refuting the idea Daniel saw a vision of Christ going to heaven to be with the Father, which occurred after He disappeared from His disciples sight in Act 1:11. As a matter of fact, verse two states He will rule in the midst of His enemies. His enemies will definitely not be in His midst in heaven. The only conclusion we can reach is that He will rule right here from earth!!. Just as many scriptures that I've posted on this thread testify!
5. You mean the ones He will rule in the midst of (Ps 110:2) after His return and subsequently conquer? (Ps 2:8-9; Rev 2:27)
6. Because the GB says so or is it because you can prove it from the evidence available? I have intensively studied the history of my people and I can tell you with certainty, the calculation for the 1914 date (yes I read all about it) goes against every bit of historical, archaeological, astronomical, and biblical evidence available.
7. Then you cannot be Jehovah's exclusive people as His real disciples have doctrines (Act 2:42 and many others) and are also a church (Act 2:47). Only trying to point out the poor reasoning the WT has instilled in your psyche.
8. It also gets darker for some (Amo 5:20)
9. Thank Jehovah for that!
Last edited:
kjw47
Well-Known Member
The evidence Jesus is Michael-- There are two rides of the white horse( righteous war) rev 6--the war in heaven--Michael rode this ride--but you see he receives his crown--only Jesus gets the crown, only Jesus is Gods appointed king( Daniel 7:13-15)--we find satan and his angels are defeated( bruised in the head)--Jesus was foretold to bruise satan in his head. 2nd ride of the white horse--Jesus leads Gods armies to earth at Har-mageddon--1Thess 4:16--upon this return he comes with the trumpet of God( announcing the ride) and with the voice of the archangel) ---- because its his voice--Jesus rides both rides once called Michael--once called Jesus--this occurred-Daniel 12: 1
Yoshua
Well-Known Member
So it says in v.3 that.‘Let no one in any way deceive you,’ and v.15, say that we Stand Firm and hold on to the traditions.
2 Thess. 2:15
15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Then what will be the consequence if there is apostasy (during their time and the coming days)?
Truly, they stand firm and by this message (below), Christianity was never shaken or rattled. Instead Paul uttered “Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen.”
Phil. 4:20
20. Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
Philemon 1:3
3. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 5:10-11
10. And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.
11. To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen.
1 Tim. 1:17
17. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
They stand firm and dependent on God’s protection. They are warned only and not to be ready to start a new established church. Thus, no any sign of command from Jesus Christ that a future church will be founded.
2 Thess. 3:3-6
3. But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one.
4. And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will continue to do what we command.
5. And may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.
6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
We acknowledged on the account regarding the Roman Catholicism during that time, but based on the scripture above by Paul, they are never shaken and rattled. Truly, they hold firm to what has commanded to hold on their tradition. Now, where does that notion about sun god, Constantine and Roman Catholicism came from?
Do you think that there are no more Christians like Tertullian, Athanasius, Justyn Martyr, Iraenaeus, Aristides, Origen and other apologists, and early Church Fathers who propagate Christianity?
Let us see if Thomas was really in the state of surprise like what JW org. and the Church of Christ (Philippines) claimed. The right context can surely help us to draw the right conclusion if John 17:3 mentioned Thomas presence.
John 17
1. WHEN JESUS had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee,
2. since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him.
3. And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
4. I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do;
5. and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.
6. "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word.
John 20:17
18. Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
19. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
20. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
21. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
24. Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
25. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe."
26. Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you."
27. Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing."
28. Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
29. Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
Please follow me verse by verse:
The sequence (day & time) of the context is taken into consideration. Mary Magdalene announced that to the Disciples that she has seen the Lord (Thomas was not with them). The next scene has a gap between Mary’s announcement and the first day of the week from v.19. They saw Jesus in gladness and not in shocking situation. Jesus (even) had time to speak with them. Thomas is not with them during the appearance of Jesus (v.21-23). The time that Thomas heard about Jesus is when the other disciples told him (v.25). After eight days, Thomas was with the other disciples, and confessed
"My Lord and my God!" (in the original text format, the Lord of me and the God of me).
Question: How come Thomas was surprise when he already heard about Jesus already? and after 8 days. Please think about it.
If you are Thomas, will you be in the act of surprise or shock that you’ve seen Jesus after you know it already before (that they see Jesus already without Thomas) plus the 8 days afterwards???
Then if you would insist that Thomas will be in the act of surprise, he will be overacting or exaggerating. It is like an actor who will do the play to a scene, do you want to see an actor in a Delayed Reaction? I’m sure the director will kick you out because of wrong sequence of acting as delayed reaction.
The validity of evidence in regard to Jesus deity came from the affirmation of Jesus "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Jesus never refuted nor corrected Thomas confession, but affirmed and accepted it. In consideration with their practice in utterance of a deity is punishable by stoning to death (John 10:33), therefore the uttered word of Thomas is a verbal risk which he should be discreet to do it.
John 10:33
33. The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."
If Jesus is the “begotten Son,” then how come Archangel is a “begotten Son”?
The problem of the word “mighty one” is you converted it easily as God. Jesus is already stoned because of His claim to be God. JW believed Father God is Almighty God and Jesus Christ is a Mighty God.
How come that the word “God” which refers to Almighty God simply means now into a “a Mighty one or Mighty God”? It is a contradiction. Is Jesus a Mighty God or Almighty God?
It is because Jesus is not the archangel Michael. Let me prove to you. Now, why Jesus can appeal to Father God to put more than twelve legions of angels, if Jesus is the Archangel Michael?
Does an Archangel can appeal to our Father God? It is not logical.
How can an angel appeal to the Father God? Angels are made to follow and not to appeal. Please answer this.
Matt. 26:53-54
53. "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
54. "How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?"
Sorry for my word usage for making you upset. Ok. It is clear that when the word “worship” refer to God (Father), the worship is used, but for Jesus as the Mighty God, the word “obeisance” is use to come out that He is a lesser God.
One thing that came up to my mind is this:
If Jesus is Mighty God, He is also a God , not a god. How come that He is not—to be worshipped?
Thanks
Last edited:
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
And that is just what happened. The apostles had only the Hebrew Scriptures.....we have their writings and the Christian "traditions" handed down by them is in the Christian scriptures, not in the traditions of an apostate church system. Do you understand the difference?
The "wheat" were not going disappear, but their growth was to be stunted by the "weeds". This is made apparent by the fact that the workers were instructed not to uproot the weeds in case they uprooted the wheat along with them. (Matt 13:36-43)
So both have been 'growing together' from the first century all the way to the time of the end (the harvest) It is only at the end times that a distinction was to be made between the two. The reapers are instructed to collect the weeds first and dispose of them. Then the wheat are gathered into the storehouse.
The Bible paints a very clear picture to me.
What has that scripture got to do with the apostasy? It is clear that "some" would stand firm for the truth of Christ's teachings. The wheat have been there all along. Many of them were tortured and executed by the church itself for daring to oppose its absolute authority and wicked teachings.
The weeds did not behave in a Christ-like manner but like the Pharisees, imitated their real father. like it or not, this is the foundation of Christendom. If you want to criticise our beginnings, do not fail check out the origins of all the churches of Christendom.... It is shameful, to say the least.
The Reformation did not unite Christians...all it did was break the power of Roman Catholicism and carve Christianity up into even more bickering fragments. Are you proud to be a part of that....? I wasn't. I was relieved to walk away. (Rev 18:4, 5)
Yes they do "stand firm and dependent on God's protection" otherwise the wheat would have been completely obliterated by the weeds. But Daniel did not foretell a 'future new church'....he foretold a 'cleaning, whitening and refining' of God's people in the future. Just as Jesus came, not to start a new religion, but to clean up the Jewish religion....so in the "time of the end" it was foretold again. Why would God foretell a "cleansing" if there was no filth? Why a "whitening", if there was no stain? Why a "refining" if there were no impurities to be removed? (Dan 12:4, 9, 10)
Sorry, your phrasing is a little difficult to understand here.....but the establishment of Roman Catholicism was only a symptom of a much deeper problem....an apostasy that had been festering for centuries. There is a reason why the Christian scriptures were completed at the end of the first century because after that everything went to the dogs. The weeds began to flourish.
By the time of Constantine the church was so weak that the merging of Roman sun worship with apostate Christianity, (still evident in the Catholic Church to this day,) was sure to happen just as Jesus said it would. The weeds then took over in the church and spread all over the world. Churches became divided by nationalism and by sectarianism. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox......does the Christ exist divided by nationality?
Why did Paul say there were to be NO divisions among Christ's followers? (1 Cor 1:10) Yet we see nothing but division in Christendom.
The early Church Fathers were not the "propagators" of Christianity, but the instruments used by the devil to fertilise his weeds. Some resisted the change but the tide became too strong.
Yes indeed, the context always reveals things we might not at first understand. Your own sequence seems to be out of order.
Were you there to read his body language and tone of voice? All we have is a brief account of a doubting man's reaction to seeing his Lord after he had suffered a terrible death. Thomas was not among the apostles when Jesus appeared to them. They related that Jesus had been with them...but he doubted that it could be true, stating that he would not believe it unless he saw the proof. So eight days later Jesus granted his request to see with his own eyes that it was truly Jesus. His response is not at all out of order under the circumstances.
This is not true. Thomas' brief response and Jesus' not making a fuss about it are hardly something that prove a doctrine.
The expression “My Lord and my God” would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was the Almighty God. (Joh 20:17) That would be a contradiction.
John himself, after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.”—Joh 20:30, 31.
This was a false claim made by the Jews in an attempt to do away with Jesus, not an admission by God's son that he was equal with his Father.
God has many "sons" as the Bible clearly states. The Angels and even Adam are called "sons of God", but they are unlike this unique son who is "only begotten".....a begotten son needs a 'begetter'. "The Word" was "with God in the beginning", meaning the beginning of creation, because the eternal God has no beginning. He is the first and only direct creation of the Father, which makes him unique. (Col 1:15, 16) All other things were brought into existence "through" the son. There is no scriptural reason why Michael cannot be Jesus in his heavenly role. He speaks of his Father as his God even after his return to heaven. (Rev 3:12) Can God have a God?
It never meant anything else but a "mighty one". But there is only one "Almighty" God.....the Father. The word "theos" only ever meant a "mighty one" in Greek. In order to qualify which "theos" is spoken about when Father and son are mentioned together, the use of the definite article differentiates between "a god" and "the God". In John 1:1 there are two "mighty ones" spoken about....but only one is "ho theos" (The God).
Angels, human judges and even satan are all called "gods" in the scriptures. It is not a title used exclusively of the Father.
Why not? God's interactions with his angels are mentioned in the Bible. (Job 1:6; 38:4-7) What prevents them from appealing to the Father? As "sons of God", He is their Father too.
What is upsetting is the condescension with which many people address us and our beliefs. We can hold our ground scripturally with everything we believe. Just because it is a departure from what is accepted today as Christian belief, doesn't mean that it's wrong. None of it is based on human tradition or the introduced doctrines made part of an apostate church during the period in which Jesus said his enemy would produce a counterfeit form of Christianity.
In the contextual use of the word "theos" in the Greek, it is clear that Jesus, as a divine being, is rightly referred to as a "mighty one" but he is not "THE Mighty One". In John 1:18, he is called "the only begotten god".....since the Almighty cannot be "begotten", it is clear that this is a lesser personage than the Almighty himself. Jesus called his Father "the only true God" (John 17:3) he did not include himself in that designation.....why do you all keep ignoring this scripture?
Because the worship of all lesser beings is to be directed to the Father....all prayer is to the Father.....all honor and glory is to the Father.....because Jehovah is the only true God. (Deut 6:4; Luke 4:8; Matt 6:9; Phil 2:11)
This is what the Bible teaches.
Last edited:
Mountain_Climber
Active Member
Hebrews 1:1-2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers [under the covenant] by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things [descended from Adam], by whom also he made the worlds;
Above, “heir of all things [descended from Adam]”, because Adam was created and given dominion in the image of the heavenly things wherein the spirit bodied first created Son of God (Michael the lone Archangel of God) already had preeminence.
This truth cannot properly be bucked by pointing to Michael's humble speech toward Satan as spoken of in Jude, for to do so only proves that the one doing the bucking has the wrong idea of how appointed headship under God operates. (I set this apart because you will need to pause and ponder it.)
The first created Son of God (Michael the lone Archangel) lived by the same principle that he later taught men of flesh while he himself wore man's flesh: Matthew 23:11 “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” Having lived that humble attitude as the highest of God's appointed leaders in heaven, (where he was opposed by Satan's very opposite attitude,) and now living it as the last Adam having inherited the first Adam's portion as a son of God so that the man Jesus was now “the heir of all things”, Jesus knew very well the importance of what he then next said: Matthew 23:12 “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”
It should also be noted that, prior to Jesus' exaltation among humans in the stead of Adam, the first Adam had the preeminence over humans. This is why it is a man who will judge the world, the point of the scripture telling us: Acts 17:31 “Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [“that” {or, “a”}] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.” Incontestably, the Greek word therein used for “man” refers to a man of flesh.
Quite clearly the writer of Acts 17:31 is telling us that it will be the man Jesus who does the judging of this world. But how is that possible if Jesus gave his body of flesh as a sacrifice for our sins? This has led to still more confusion for those who have recognized the point that Acts 17:31 clearly says it is a man who does the judging of the world, in that they muse this to mean that Jesus will come back to live in the flesh, which then contradicts his having sacrificed his flesh on our behalf. That confusion comes of having failed to appreciate what it really means that the first man Adam was made a living soul but the last man Adam a life-giving spirit. That life-giving spirit is the legacy of the man of flesh Jesus living through men who have become as Christ's brothers in the flesh, but you are mistaking it to mean his translation back to a spirit bodied heavenly creature. By coming in the flesh Michael was able to leave the legacy to work in the flesh which should have been created of Adam after his image as a Son of God. But the first man Adam turned the glory of that image into a likeness of corruptible men who resemble the lower beasts in their nature by the ignorance in them.
You, JayJayDee, are taking that confusion in a different direction, but confusion none-the-less. Go back to where your Governing Body tells that Psalms 1:8, 9; 45:6, 7 were first spoken and applied to the human king Solomon and other of Israel's flesh and blood kings. Work your way up from there, for, so was most of what you read from Psalms. These are recitations of meditations on the record of the Law, and as such have prophetic value.
*** 1985, 1989 – RS (Reasoning From the Scriptures), p. 422 Trinity ***
Hebrews 1:8:
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os′] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os′ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him′] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os′] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
If it be true that Psalms 1:8, 9; 45:6, 7 were first applied to flesh and blood Israelite kings (and it is indeed true), then, just what makes you think that is not also true of most all the recitations of David and the other Psalmists?
Your last paragraph is out of character for you and so I will attribute it to stress of some sort and let it pass. But listen to me when I tell you that if you believe all you have been saying then you have not quite understood what the governing body teaches on this issue. Go back and review their teachings.
Last edited:
The weeds came in. They were the Gnostics and the Arians. Both were condemned by Church councils.
However, they have come on the scene today. They are JW's.
I'd like to believe that weeds are not people. Is that OK with you?
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Are they? And this is the view of the Catholic Church is it. Hmmmm very interesting, coming from someone who belongs to an institution that was more corrupt and blood guilty than any other claiming to be "Christian" in all of human history. These very Church Councils introduced the blasphemy of the trinity...the suffering of immortal souls in hell, purgatory and limbo? They sought to emulate the activities of their god by torturing and murdering people...burning them alive at the stake for daring to be in possession of a Bible or for exposing their questionable teachings and hypocrisy. Very Christ-like.....really?
My opinion is that all churches that teach what Roman Catholicism introduced into "Christ's church", hundreds of years after he left, are the weeds that Jesus warned about. Have you ever investigated the level of barbarity that was meted out to those who were persecuted under the auspices of the inquisition? Was there a "Grand Inquisitor" or even a "Pope" in first century Christianity? "Pontifex Maximus" was a pagan Roman title, not a Christian one. Is the Pope not still called "the Pontiff" right up to the present?
Did the first Christians believe in a three headed god? If they did, why did the Jews not believe that? (Deut 6:4)
Were any Christians authorised to carry out ANY punishment apart from excommunication for any breach of God's commands?
Were they permitted to celebrate pagan festivals under an assumed name? (2 Thess 2:9-12) 'Taking pleasure in unrighteousness' is what characterises those whom Christ rejects.
I believe that you need to clean up your own backyard before you point fingers at anyone else. OK?
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
I have no idea what you mean by this. What is your point? What confusion do you believe I am under?
Do you see yourself as the sole arbiter of what I post MC? Am I to answer to you or to bow before your superior knowledge perhaps? Or am I supposed express my gratitude for your concessions?
Who do you think you are?
Are you a ex-JW who no longer qualifies to be considered as part of Jehovah's organisation?
You obviously consider yourself as being in a position of some authority because that seems to come through in your condescending attitude.
Listen to you? Why should I listen to you? Are you taking the place of the FDS now? You see yourself above the slave?
With whom are you affiliated MC. What religious organisation are you associated with now? With whom do you meet to "incite to love and fine works" as we 'behold Jehovah's day drawing near'? (Heb 10:34, 35)
Your use of the KJV demonstrates that your choice of Bible translation is stuck in the past. I find that quite telling.
Yep. They are. Gnostic Arians to the core. You combine both Church defined heresies into one religion.