Isiaha 9:6

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The question is for those who state that Jesus is the Almighty.

Why the verse is not translated as the Almighty is because the Hebrew does not say Almighty, it says Mighty God. There are two distinct terms, El'Shaddai and El'Gibbor. This therefore begs the question, why if it does not explicitly state Almighty God are people telling me that it ...[text shortened]... the text as something else other than the Almighty, don't you think? Would that not make sense?

It doesn't mean that Jesus is an angel. Give it a rest already.

Originally posted by divegeester
It doesn't mean that Jesus is an angel. Give it a rest already.

all irrelevancy will be ignored.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all irrelevancy will be ignored.

It's not irrelevant just because you don't want to discuss it robbie. We all know you have a preset set of JW beliefs so we all know that you spend you time looking for syntax nuances in various ancient text to support the scriptural contortions you have to go through to make it all fit.

You believe that Jehovah and Jesus are both gods but you have downgraded one to an angel whilst still being a god and co redemptive saviour with Jehovah. Now, you've got yourself into this doctrinal panty twist, so you get yourself out of it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, God is almighty and mighty by definition. So it matters little which adjective is used. They are both correct and mean the same when referring to God. The only real difference is if you use the Almighty alone as a noun without God. Then we would know that it refers to God alone. Also if you say the almighty One, then we know it refers to God. Or ...[text shortened]... ong with "the God" not "a god" as you like to make out. So it makes no difference in this case.

it matters a great deal to those interested in accuracy and in truth. No they do not mean the same thing, by your own admission its possible to be a mighty god and not the personage of the Almighty God, after all you did state that a god was defined by power or authority, did you not.

Perhaps you will tell us why you have ascribed the value of the Almighty to a simple powerful entity like a mighty god.

Originally posted by divegeester
It's not irrelevant just because you don't want to discuss it robbie. We all know you have a preset set of JW beliefs so we all know that you spend you time looking for syntax nuances in various ancient text to support the scriptural contortions you have to go through to make it all fit.

You believe that Jehovah and Jesus are both gods but you have do ...[text shortened]... ehovah. Now, you've got yourself into this doctrinal panty twist, so you get yourself out of it.

its irrelevant to the theme of this thread and i will not have you hijacking it. If you wish to start your own thread on any topic of your choice i suggest you do so. Your irrelevancies will be ignored.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its irrelevant to the theme of this thread and i will not have you hijacking it. If you wish to start your own thread on any topic of your choice i suggest you do so. Your irrelevancies will be ignored.

But no one else is talking to you except me...

Originally posted by divegeester
But no one else is talking to you except me...

then I suggest that you keep on topic

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it matters a great deal to those interested in accuracy and in truth. No they do not mean the same thing, by your own admission its possible to be a mighty god and not the personage of the Almighty God, after all you did state that a god was defined by power or authority, did you not.

Perhaps you will tell us why you have ascribed the value of the Almighty to a simple powerful entity like a mighty god.

You are only paying attention to part of what I said. No, it is not possible to be the mighty God without being the personage of the Almighty God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are only paying attention to part of what I said. No, it is not possible to be the mighty God without being the personage of the Almighty God.

but you have sad that a god is defined by being powerful, that human judges and satan are termed gods because of their power, surely these are mighty gods but not the personage of God himself?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but you have sad that a god is defined by being powerful, that human judges and satan are termed gods because of their power, surely these are mighty gods but not the personage of God himself?

There can be mighty false gods that are not the True God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There can be mighty false gods that are not the True God.

you were not asked if there were mighty true or false gods, what you were actually asked was, is it possible to be a mighty god but not the personage of God to which you have now answered, yes, its possible. Thank you.

Originally posted by divegeester
But no one else is talking to you except me...

I would like to put the same question to you directly,

is it possible to be a mighty god but not the personage of God himself

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were not asked if there were mighty true or false gods, what you were actually asked was, is it possible to be a mighty god but not the personage of God to which you have now answered, yes, its possible. Thank you.

You are welcome.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all irrelevancy will be ignored.

Which is anything not agreeing with WTO dogma, eh?

No, we've seen how this goes for you before.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were not asked if there were mighty true or false gods, what you were actually asked was, is it possible to be a mighty god but not the personage of God to which you have now answered, yes, its possible. Thank you.

Yes, how dare he not believe in the WTO-created dogma. For shame.