Originally posted by SuzianneYes, that is what happens when one tells a lie and tries to justify and defend it.
This is all spun from the JW dogma that Christ is a "created being", and therefore[sic] could not have been "with God" in the beginning. It's amazing what gymnastics have to be done to appear correct when you get the first thing wrong.
Drop that one dogmatic miscue, and suddenly it all becomes clearer.
Also, the archangel who usually has the j ...[text shortened]... .
And as for Adventist dogma, they are second only to JWs for dogma made up from whole cloth.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat has been answered in your other thread. Remember that all the angels of heaven are commanded to worship the only begotten Son of God, not created, but begotten.
the actual question is this,
Is Jesus or is he not part of the creation or what did Paul mean by first born OF all creation. This is my question which as yet you have failed to answer.
After this is answered then we can return to the term that Paul used for firstborn and why it may be relevant. As I stated before the term first-born occurs m ...[text shortened]... ed with regard to progeny.
your irrelevancies will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.
You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Thankyou Manfred.
You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71Yes, but you seem to overlook the fact that Michael is a created being like Gabriel.
You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.
Manny
-Removed-perhaps you can comment on the ideas that Manfred cites and if we are to be accurate Peter denied being with Jesus, how you get from denying to be with Jesus or knowing him and the disciples to denying that Jesus is Lord you can perhaps explain for its not entirely apparent from the text.
I'm not sure why this language is used but I've always wondered about that passage. Michael wages war with the serpent? Now I know the JWs have another meaning many times for what seems to be plain but I think we have to ask the question. I would say let's look at the original languages. The Captain or prince of God wages war with the serpent who else can this be ? I've always wondered because it sure sounds a lot like Jesus.
Manny
I'll give you a perfect example of odd language. Every time when Jesus tells John now write to the church at Whichever place It reads To the angel at Ephesus write this ......now do you think this means a literal angel was at every church? Or could mean to the messenger of each church write thus and thus ? I think the passage about Michael and his angels waging war with Satan and his angels is very similar
Manny
Revelation 19:10 NASB
Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
there is no argument that men are not to worship angels
Manny