Originally posted by galveston75MICHAEL would. He IS an archangel, the WARRIOR angel, after all.
"If I missed this forgive me but Robbie made a comment. This angel "Michael" defeats Satan the Devil, correct?
What other angel in the Bible would have this power and ability if this were not Jesus?"
There are a couple on the other threads your avoiding too.
Saying that he would HAVE to be Jesus in order to kick Lucifer out of Heaven is ridiculous and a slam on Michael. What a stupid comment.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI will make a concession here. Give me a scripture reference for this (after all, you say "the Bible say(s)"... show me where) and then YOU will answer all the questions put to YOU.
Please answer the question, why does the Bible say that Jesus is part OF the creation and you say he is not.
your insults will be ignored.
Originally posted by galveston75You can only say this if you deny the Trinity.
Your comments are getting silly, you do know that don't you?
And no we don't not worship Jesus. If you do you are going against his own commands to worship "only his Father in heaven", aren't you?
Trinitarians are not going against his own commands. In worshipping Him, we ARE worshipping the Father.
More half-truths designed to confuse. Things would be a LOT easier if you two would just speak clearly. Oh, wait... that would make the shortcomings in your arguments clear to anyone.
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI already did so, you ignored the question and instead offered up a definition of the term firstborn, Colossians 1:15 states that Jesus is the first-born OF all creation, that is, it indicates that he is part of creation, you say he is not.
I will make a concession here. Give me a scripture reference for this (after all, you say "the Bible say(s)"... show me where) and then YOU will answer all the questions put to YOU.
Originally posted by galveston75Too bad you two cannot stop your "Rah! Rah!" of your corporation long enough to be concerned about your own salvation.
Lol.... you really don't care about being truthful with your worship do you? You just want to be right in your own eyes. How sad that it's that important to you to be willing to give up a true relationship with God.
1 edit
Originally posted by Suziannewow your ignorance is really showing, can you point to other instances in scripture where the exact same term means an act of worship, for i can demonstrate other instances where it means to bow down, do obeisance, Why when it comes to Jesus does it suddenly transform itself into an act of worship. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about to be perfectly honest, in fact i know you don't
"did obeisance", really? Anything to avoid the word "worship" I guess.
I think nothing further proves concepts like the Trinity than when we can point to these derivative sects and show exactly how many hoops they have to jump through to nay say the truth.
"At this the servant fell on his knees* before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' Matthew 18:26
*prosekynei - fell down on his knees, not an act of worship
The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
*prosekynei - knelt before him
why when it comes to Jesus does prosekynei become an act of worship?
Originally posted by SuzianneWhat mistake? It's wrong to ask God for direction on important issues because one see's the flaws in religions today and then be willing to be directed in a correct way by god that may mean letting go of paganistic beliefs that have pulled down christendom as a whole? Sounds like great advice......
And thoughts like this are what led the originators of JW dogma to think similar. Don't make their mistake.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're just being incredibly thick-headed here, as well as semantic.
I already did so, you ignored the question and instead offered up a definition of the term firstborn, Colossians 1:15 states that Jesus is the first-born OF all creation, that is, it indicates that he is part of creation, you say he is not.
I SAID that the Greek word for "firstborn", or prototokos has more than one definition. The definition we need concern ourselves with here is that of rank, and not time order. Let's look at it again:
Colossians 1
15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
From here follows verses that reiterate what was just said, presumably for the slow ones (apparently you fall into this category).
16 "For by him were all things created*, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
My bold, but this is another argument entirely.
17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Here is the meat: Jesus is ranked before all things. He is firstborn, by rank. Again, reiterated in the next verse, for the slow ones.
18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
19 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
How in the world can you say that because the Bible SAYS that he is "above all things" you ignore this and claim that he was CREATED first? Clearly, if Paul had MEANT "first created", he would have SAID "protoktisis", or "first created". No, Paul avoided the use of "first created" and used a colloquialism common for the time of saying "firstborn", meaning "above all" and "the heir [of God]". Saying someone is "firstborn of all creation" means simply, that he is "above all creation" and therefore, clearly NOT part of it. I am, of course, speaking to the gallery, as I must assume, since you are a "translation master" that you KNOW all this.
You call yourself the supreme "translation master" yet you fail to disclose the ENTIRE truth of the Greek, and so, as I said before, I can only assume a willful deceit.