Did Any of the ANFs Believe that Mich...
sound

West Hartford, CT

#61 May 15, 2012
Mild Temper,

Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria both believed that Jesus is God. They were both devote Trinitarians.

Since: Sep 11

Tonbridge, UK

#62 May 17, 2012
Dee
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text> Can you see the question mark when I ask a question? Rev 1:8 does refer to Jesus being the Almighty hence my question.
Rev 1:8 says,"Revelation 1:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,”(A) says the Lord God,“who is, and who was, and who is to come,(B) the Almighty.”
Okay, now you have retracted and reverted back to your original claim and have the decency to admit that you believe Jesus to be Almighty, even if that idea is wrong. Thank you. However, clearly that is not the case, Jesus is not Almighty, as I believe I have previously shown that not to be so. But you still try in vain to make out that Jesus was Almighty by spinning a scripture out of context and by a lack of application of ancient Hebraic concepts.
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text>(C)
IF REV 1:8 is speaking of the Almighty coming, the Father being the Almighty,then are you saying Jesus is not coming? Please explain how that can be,
Whether Revelation 1:8 is talking about Jesus (which it isn't, it is about Jehovah) is another debate, this one is about Jesus as Michael...But, without going too far off track, the reference to someone coming is not a literal physical coming, it refers to one figuratively coming, in the sense of feeling the affects of the one that rules and the one that is subsequently handed the authority of rulership, to Jesus, the son of God...
Revelation is obviously figurative because it speaks of an eternal infinitely existing entity as having a beginning and an end,(Alpha and Omega) that cannot possibly be literal.

Revelation 1:8 speaks of one that rules far away, in heaven, and later, as we know, the ruler, God the Father hands his rulership to his son, temporarily. Yet the rule of God the Father is felt by the people and we can feel the presence of that one that has figuratively 'come', in this case Jehovah, as if he was literally here. We then feel the presence of the rulership of his son, Jesus who has been given that temporary rule.

The above is typical of ancient Hebraic and Middle Eastern thought. The ruler, a King or Emperor, sent his emissary to other lands on his behalf, and that one sent, the emissary, acted out as the one that sent him, he was as inviolable as the Ruler, he took on the name of his ruler etc. The angels were sent by Jehovah God as emissaries and acted out as if they were God, taking on his name too. It's known as the shaliach. It is why Jesus is known as an exact representative of His God, and why Revelation 1:8 is written as it is... as to why it says that Jehovah is figuratively 'coming'(to rule) but it is in fact his son that will rule on his behalf.(It would be wise to look up the concept of the Shaliach)

It is much like Tiberius had *come* to rule his Empire, Jerusalem included, without He literally being in Jerusalem, but he rules from the seat in Rome. However, his presence of rulership, generally harsh Roman law and Roman ways, were felt in Jerusalem hundreds of miles away as if he had come. But those in Jerusalem in the main felt the rulership of one that was given rule over them, Pilate, even though the ultimate rule was that of the Roman Emperor.

.

Since: Sep 11

Tonbridge, UK

#63 May 17, 2012
Unknown
Unknown wrote:
<quoted text>
The verse you are using from Isaiah 9.
I see what you mean... But please note that Isaiah 9:6 starts off speaking about the man Jesus in the future, but in a present tense "a child born to us"... "a son given to us" But, then, referring to Jesus, the verse reverts to future tense only "and the princely rule *will come to be* upon his shoulder. And then referring to his name and nature: "And his name *will be called* Angel of great Counsel, mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Please note that this is not now speaking of Jesus as a man because it uses the words to describe him as mighty God and an angel.

.
Unknown

Teringie, Australia

#64 May 17, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Unknown
<quoted text>
I see what you mean... But please note that Isaiah 9:6 starts off speaking about the man Jesus in the future, but in a present tense "a child born to us"... "a son given to us" But, then, referring to Jesus, the verse reverts to future tense only "and the princely rule *will come to be* upon his shoulder. And then referring to his name and nature: "And his name *will be called* Angel of great Counsel, mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Please note that this is not now speaking of Jesus as a man because it uses the words to describe him as mighty God and an angel.
.
You're saying that the phrase "will come to be" divides the natures of the person from man into angel?

If that is the case i cannot agree. I see no reason to assume that "the child" has to change from a man to an angel based upon this verse since it can grammatically be translated "messenger of great counsel". I think you're just grasping at straws now.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 11

Tonbridge, UK

#65 May 17, 2012
Unknown
Unknown wrote:
<quoted text>
You're saying that the phrase "will come to be" divides the natures of the person from man into angel?
If that is the case i cannot agree. I see no reason to assume that "the child" has to change from a man to an angel based upon this verse since it can grammatically be translated "messenger of great counsel". I think you're just grasping at straws now.
Jesus, as a man on earth was resurrected back to his original spirit form, as a God, an angel. That is what Isaiah 9:6 is implying. The verse gives Jesus various superlatives what he will become that do not show him to be a man or that he remains a man or was that he ever was a little child come omnipotent Almighty God.

The Isaiah 9:6 verse is not even referring to Jesus as a messenger, because the word angellos that the Greek speaking translators translated from the Hebrew in the Septuagint LXX Isaiah 9:6 is ‘El’ from the transliteration of the Hebrew:“one conselling El masterful” and nowhere to be seen in that context is a messenger.

Here we see ancient thoughts of angel = G/god, and the noun G/god being translated as angel when referring to Jesus. Obviously the concept at that BCE / CE time was that Jesus was a mighty angelic God and not the almighty Jehovah God himself.
I think that you are now in denial of the evidence.

.
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#66 May 17, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Dee
<quoted text>
Okay, now you have retracted and reverted back to your original claim and have the decency to admit that you believe Jesus to be Almighty, even if that idea is wrong. Thank you. However, clearly that is not the case, Jesus is not Almighty, as I believe I have previously shown that not to be so. But you still try in vain to make out that Jesus was Almighty by spinning a scripture out of context and by a lack of application of ancient Hebraic concepts.
<quoted text>
Whether Revelation 1:8 is talking about Jesus (which it isn't, it is about Jehovah) is another debate, this one is about Jesus as Michael...But, without going too far off track, the reference to someone coming is not a literal physical coming, it refers to one figuratively coming, in the sense of feeling the affects of the one that rules and the one that is subsequently handed the authority of rulership, to Jesus, the son of God...
Revelation is obviously figurative because it speaks of an eternal infinitely existing entity as having a beginning and an end,(Alpha and Omega) that cannot possibly be literal.
Revelation 1:8 speaks of one that rules far away, in heaven, and later, as we know, the ruler, God the Father hands his rulership to his son, temporarily. Yet the rule of God the Father is felt by the people and we can feel the presence of that one that has figuratively 'come', in this case Jehovah, as if he was literally here. We then feel the presence of the rulership of his son, Jesus who has been given that temporary rule.
The above is typical of ancient Hebraic and Middle Eastern thought. The ruler, a King or Emperor, sent his emissary to other lands on his behalf, and that one sent, the emissary, acted out as the one that sent him, he was as inviolable as the Ruler, he took on the name of his ruler etc. The angels were sent by Jehovah God as emissaries and acted out as if they were God, taking on his name too. It's known as the shaliach. It is why Jesus is known as an exact representative of His God, and why Revelation 1:8 is written as it is... as to why it says that Jehovah is figuratively 'coming'(to rule) but it is in fact his son that will rule on his behalf.(It would be wise to look up the concept of the Shaliach)
It is much like Tiberius had *come* to rule his Empire, Jerusalem included, without He literally being in Jerusalem, but he rules from the seat in Rome. However, his presence of rulership, generally harsh Roman law and Roman ways, were felt in Jerusalem hundreds of miles away as if he had come. But those in Jerusalem in the main felt the rulership of one that was given rule over them, Pilate, even though the ultimate rule was that of the Roman Emperor.
.
Rev 1:8 is talking about the Father, the Almighty, coming to judge the quick and the dead? What is Jesus doing while the Father is doing his job? I did not say Jesus was the Almighty but Rev 1:8 sure makes it sound that way because the words Almighty and Mighty are interchangeable. I believe the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. I do believe all is clear when you understand the Godhead. This is where all the JW confusion comes from and their inability to understand scriptures.
I think you are very confused as are all JW's because they are taught confusion.
LURKERS and BIBLE STUDIES see how Ra88itt cannot even understand what I am saying as he is trying to make it seem I am reverting back to something since my beliefs have never changed from what is written in scriptures.
You might consider this. jw's are taught that there is no more Jesus for his body dissolved when he died and it is Michael who is in heaven. an archangel but no Jesus.
Is it any wonder that they think God the Father, the Almighty is coming rather than Jesus as scriptures tell us.
Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God but out the other side of the WT mouth it is Michael.
You cannot be wrapped too tight to follow false teachers who are false prophets.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#67 May 17, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Unknown
<quoted text>
Jesus, as a man on earth was resurrected back to his original spirit form, as a God, an angel. That is what Isaiah 9:6 is implying. The verse gives Jesus various superlatives what he will become that do not show him to be a man or that he remains a man or was that he ever was a little child come omnipotent Almighty God.
The Isaiah 9:6 verse is not even referring to Jesus as a messenger, because the word angellos that the Greek speaking translators translated from the Hebrew in the Septuagint LXX Isaiah 9:6 is ‘El’ from the transliteration of the Hebrew:“one conselling El masterful” and nowhere to be seen in that context is a messenger.
Here we see ancient thoughts of angel = G/god, and the noun G/god being translated as angel when referring to Jesus. Obviously the concept at that BCE / CE time was that Jesus was a mighty angelic God and not the almighty Jehovah God himself.
I think that you are now in denial of the evidence.
.
The bible does not say the Son was an angel. According to you all men would be Gods... I am God and you are God. you need to start thinking for yourself and reading scriptures in context,instead of absorbing nonsense You do not read in context when others are called gods. it does not make any sense and unknown is right you are grasping at straws to uphold faulty reasoning.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Unknown

Teringie, Australia

#68 May 17, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Jesus, as a man on earth was resurrected back to his original spirit form, as a God, an angel. That is what Isaiah 9:6 is implying. The verse gives Jesus various superlatives what he will become that do not show him to be a man or that he remains a man or was that he ever was a little child come omnipotent Almighty God.
Isaiah 9 never mentions anything along the lines of calling Jesus an angel or being resurrected back to an original 'spirit form'.
Ra88itt wrote:
The Isaiah 9:6 verse is not even referring to Jesus as a messenger, because the word angellos that the Greek speaking translators translated from the Hebrew in the Septuagint LXX Isaiah 9:6 is ‘El’ from the transliteration of the Hebrew:“one conselling El masterful” and nowhere to be seen in that context is a messenger.
The word 'El' means 'God/god'. It doesn't mean 'angel'. Strong's dictionary states this about 'El':

'el
ale
Shortened from H352; strength; as adjective mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity):- God (god), X goodly, X great, idol, might (-y one), power, strong. Compare names in “-el.”

As you can see it never states that 'El' means 'angel'.

The LXX replaces 'El' with 'angelos'.
As we both know, angelos can mean 'messenger'.

If the child to be born pre-existed then it is possible that He was an angelic being who became a man, but if He didn't pre-exist then it is obviously impossible.

Based upon the Shaliah it is both possible for the child to be in Hebrew 'El' and in Greek 'angelos - messenger' without being ontologically God or an angel.
Ra88itt wrote:
Here we see ancient thoughts of angel = G/god, and the noun G/god being translated as angel when referring to Jesus. Obviously the concept at that BCE / CE time was that Jesus was a mighty angelic God and not the almighty Jehovah God himself.
I think that you are now in denial of the evidence.
.
I'm not in denial at all, what i am is skeptical about what the correct interpretation is based upon the entirety of scripture and not a singular verse.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 11

Blandford Forum, UK

#69 May 19, 2012
Dee
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text>
Rev 1:8 is talking about the Father, the Almighty, coming to judge the quick and the dead?
You are so lost and confused in the mire of Christendom’s pagan based teachings that you don't know whether you are coming or going ! First you say that the almighty in Revelation 1:8 is Jesus the son, and then later you deny it, then you imply that it is God the Father, then you say the almighty is Jesus the son again and now you've gone back to the almighty is God the Father !!! Amazing !!!

What you are saying though is there is no scripture saying that Jesus the son is the almighty Go... which speaks volumes. If Jesus isn’t almighty, then he is not the almighty omnipotent God. In essence you agree with us without even knowing it.
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text> What is Jesus doing while the Father is doing his job? I did not say Jesus was the Almighty
You did, but to cover your tracks you lied and then denied it whilst doing the Christendom twist and shout, two step - side step dance.
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text>
but Rev 1:8 sure makes it sound that way because the words Almighty and Mighty are interchangeable.
"Sounds like", that I agree with, but in ancient Hebraic thought it is about the son as a representative of His God Jehovah.

One that is named as almighty can also be mighty, but one that is only ever named as mighty does not instantly mean that one is almighty, not even by wishful Churchoid thinking !
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text> I believe the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. I do believe all is clear when you understand the Godhead. This is where all the JW confusion comes from and their inability to understand scriptures.
It is clear that the average member of Christendom does not understand or want to understand, and therefore they do not apply the ancient Hebraic concept of the Shaliach which is about the one sent is the one that is *only representing* in every way the one that sent, which is a concept seen in scripture... but that does not make the representative sent the one that sent him.

In the trinitarian obsessive want to make out that Jesus is God, they conveniently bypass what the bible writers were actually implying, where the writers use those ancient Hebraic concepts that they knew of, understood, and were familiar with about the representative as just only being a representative, but that one not actually being the one that they represented. In that way they understood that Jesus was God in representation only, but still they knew that one was ‘a god’, one of the elohim, an angel of great counsel, who was only representing God just as God’s other angel gods had done so in the OT.

I fully understand the trinity concept because I once accepted it. However, it is clear that not every trinitarian does understand because where you do not believe the father is the son and indicate that Trinitarians say the same, I’ve debated with many of them, and nearly all of the trinitarians actually say that the Father is the son! In fact, it is what they are implying without even saying it.

.
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#70 May 19, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Dee
<quoted text>
You are so lost and confused in the mire of Christendom’s pagan based teachings that you don't know whether you are coming or going ! First you say that the almighty in Revelation 1:8 is Jesus the son, and then later you deny it, then you imply that it is God the Father, then you say the almighty is Jesus the son again and now you've gone back to the almighty is God the Father !!! Amazing !!!
What you are saying though is there is no scripture saying that Jesus the son is the almighty Go... which speaks volumes. If Jesus isn’t almighty, then he is not the almighty omnipotent God. In essence you agree with us without even knowing it.
<quoted text>
You did, but to cover your tracks you lied and then denied it whilst doing the Christendom twist and shout, two step - side step dance.
<quoted text>
"Sounds like", that I agree with, but in ancient Hebraic thought it is about the son as a representative of His God Jehovah.
One that is named as almighty can also be mighty, but one that is only ever named as mighty does not instantly mean that one is almighty, not even by wishful Churchoid thinking !
<quoted text>
It is clear that the average member of Christendom does not understand or want to understand, and therefore they do not apply the ancient Hebraic concept of the Shaliach which is about the one sent is the one that is *only representing* in every way the one that sent, which is a concept seen in scripture... but that does not make the representative sent the one that sent him.
In the trinitarian obsessive want to make out that Jesus is God, they conveniently bypass what the bible writers were actually implying, where the writers use those ancient Hebraic concepts that they knew of, understood, and were familiar with about the representative as just only being a representative, but that one not actually being the one that they represented. In that way they understood that Jesus was God in representation only, but still they knew that one was ‘a god’, one of the elohim, an angel of great counsel, who was only representing God just as God’s other angel gods had done so in the OT.
I fully understand the trinity concept because I once accepted it. However, it is clear that not every trinitarian does understand because where you do not believe the father is the son and indicate that Trinitarians say the same, I’ve debated with many of them, and nearly all of the trinitarians actually say that the Father is the son! In fact, it is what they are implying without even saying it.
.
You are a complete idiot who needs to go back to school and learn to read what is written without adding what you want others to say just so you can maintain you belief in a cult of men who are false teachers. You are a liar just like the men who have taught you to lie.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#71 Jun 3, 2012
Before I come back to shatter the dreams of Tri{3}nitarians, I would like to point out a major fallacy here.

"...CALL[ING]..." or being "...CALLED..."

A god!

Does not equate to a:

Three-persons-in-one-substance /ousia-co-equal-co-eternal-co- almight(ies)-un-created-trinit as-God!

That is:

"...One giant leap..."

Of the ( imagination ) for Tri{3}nitarians and:

"...One giant..."

Stretch of doctrine for the rest of ( reasonable ) mankind!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#72 Jun 3, 2012
I will put it more simply!

Being "...CALLED..." a god!

Does not equate to, and is definitely not the same as being a:

1.) THREE-IN-ONE
2.) SUBSTANCE/OUSIA
3.) CO-ETERNAL
4.) CO-EQUAL
5.) CO-ALL-MIGHT(IES)
6.) UN-CREATED
7.) TRI{3}NITAS
8.) GOD

That reall is one gigantic leap of the --- imagination --- for Tri{3}nitarians, and one gigantic --- stretch/wrench --- of doctrine for the rest of --- reasonable --- mankind!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#73 Jun 4, 2012
Sticking to the theme here; I would like to ask a question.

( Who ) do the Tri{3}nitarian believers here say ( is ):

"...THE ANGEL OF THE LORD..."

In the OT?
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#74 Jun 4, 2012
Matt13weedhacker wrote:
Before I come back to shatter the dreams of Tri{3}nitarians, I would like to point out a major fallacy here.
"...CALL[ING]..." or being "...CALLED..."
A god!
Does not equate to a:
Three-persons-in-one-substance /ousia-co-equal-co-eternal-co- almight(ies)-un-created-trinit as-God!
That is:
"...One giant leap..."
Of the ( imagination ) for Tri{3}nitarians and:
"...One giant..."
Stretch of doctrine for the rest of ( reasonable ) mankind!
There is no way you can shatter the truth of scriptures but time alone shatters WT teachings...no one else need do it as they flip flop doctrine themselves.

“mild temper-deep respect”

Since: Apr 12

Tulsa

#75 Jun 4, 2012
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text> You are a complete idiot who needs to go back to school and learn to read what is written without adding what you want others to say just so you can maintain you belief in a cult of men who are false teachers. You are a liar just like the men who have taught you to lie.
Dee,

You called ra88it a "complete idiot" and a liar. But then, you've called several JWs liars too. That was uncalled for and was unbecoming of a "Christian" lady. You should be ashamed of yourself. What gives you that right? And who appointed you judge? If you would actually do your own research on that subject, you will see that what ra88it said in his post is absolutely true.
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#76 Jun 4, 2012
mild temper-deep respect wrote:
<quoted text>
Dee,
You called ra88it a "complete idiot" and a liar. But then, you've called several JWs liars too. That was uncalled for and was unbecoming of a "Christian" lady. You should be ashamed of yourself. What gives you that right? And who appointed you judge? If you would actually do your own research on that subject, you will see that what ra88it said in his post is absolutely true.
If you read that post again you will see that Ra88itt called me a liar, and that is not the first time. Do you suppose that is the way a 'Christian should talk to me? What gives him that right!
Twice he said I said Jesus is the Almighty and that is a bald face lie.
REV 1:8 says jESUS is the Almighty...I didn't say it the scripture says it. Read it for yourself and tell me who is to come. jESUS or GOD? Who is the Lord God?...In scriptures Jesus is called Lord as apposed to the Father being LORD. Who was alive and now is alive again and who is to come to judge the whole world? Jesus!
New International Version (NIV)
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,”(A) says the Lord God,“who is, and who was, and who is to come,(B) the Almighty.”(C)/
I said that sounds like Jesus.
The WT can twist that anyway they want , I don't really care for it makes no difference to me nor should it to anyone. We know jesus is the one coming and that is what matters.
ps his post is absolutely false and he should learn he can't make a valid point by twisting people's words nor scriptures for that matter.

Since: Sep 11

Uckfield, UK

#77 Jun 5, 2012
Mild temper
mild temper-deep respect wrote:
<quoted text>
Dee,
You called ra88it a "complete idiot" and a liar. But then, you've called several JWs liars too. That was uncalled for and was unbecoming of a "Christian" lady. You should be ashamed of yourself. What gives you that right? And who appointed you judge? If you would actually do your own research on that subject, you will see that what ra88it said in his post is absolutely true.
This is true, Dee has named various JW's and their defenders liars etc many times, and has the audacity to imply that it is not right to do so !! This is why the poster Richardnak said on the 2 topics thread:
<<“dee, Can you not make a post without being abusive? Is this your Christlike personality?”>>

Now here Dee tries in vain to defend her position. If you look through the posts on this thread, the first accusation about anyone being called a liar comes from Dee on post 27... Here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Dee states that the JW's, and by implication anyone that defends them, are liars or false teachers etc, etc. Prior to this, things were running smoothly, but it takes a member of Christendom to lay accusation and insults to upset the apple cart... Is that not indicative of how Satan works though ?

Indeed, Dee usually is the first to try to use derogatory terms... Again, on the 2 topics thread, without I giving her any cause to act so unchristian like, she says on post 35 this of me <<“I wouldn't want to be Ra88its when he stands before Jesus!”>> Is that not degrading and is that not making herself the judge where Jesus said not to judge others ?

If you follow this thread through and look at my link to the "2 topics thread" and this one you will see that Dee by an implicit nature, did state that Jesus is almighty, then denies it, and then claims that Jesus is almighty again ! Her feeble get out clause is that she says that she did not say it but the scriptures say it, which they don't anyway, but on her post 49 she says: <<“The Father says He is God with ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH.”>> This is her claim that Jesus is almighty, even though it is a lie that Jesus is God and is almighty, seeing that it would downgrade his father as no longer being the almighty.... Anyway, it was all sufficiently countered in the end.

We know by the very nature of her argument on her many posts that it is not only her idea that the scriptures say that Jesus is almighty,*it is her belief*. So she thinks that Jesus is God and an almighty God. To verify that, just trawl through her posts if you can stomach he persistent insults of others.

.
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#78 Jun 5, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Mild temper
<quoted text>
This is true, Dee has named various JW's and their defenders liars etc many times, and has the audacity to imply that it is not right to do so !! This is why the poster Richardnak said on the 2 topics thread:
<<“dee, Can you not make a post without being abusive? Is this your Christlike personality?”>>
Now here Dee tries in vain to defend her position. If you look through the posts on this thread, the first accusation about anyone being called a liar comes from Dee on post 27... Here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
Dee states that the JW's, and by implication anyone that defends them, are liars or false teachers etc, etc. Prior to this, things were running smoothly, but it takes a member of Christendom to lay accusation and insults to upset the apple cart... Is that not indicative of how Satan works though ?
Indeed, Dee usually is the first to try to use derogatory terms... Again, on the 2 topics thread, without I giving her any cause to act so unchristian like, she says on post 35 this of me <<“I wouldn't want to be Ra88its when he stands before Jesus!”>> Is that not degrading and is that not making herself the judge where Jesus said not to judge others ?
If you follow this thread through and look at my link to the "2 topics thread" and this one you will see that Dee by an implicit nature, did state that Jesus is almighty, then denies it, and then claims that Jesus is almighty again ! Her feeble get out clause is that she says that she did not say it but the scriptures say it, which they don't anyway, but on her post 49 she says: <<“The Father says He is God with ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH.”>> This is her claim that Jesus is almighty, even though it is a lie that Jesus is God and is almighty, seeing that it would downgrade his father as no longer being the almighty.... Anyway, it was all sufficiently countered in the end.
We know by the very nature of her argument on her many posts that it is not only her idea that the scriptures say that Jesus is almighty,*it is her belief*. So she thinks that Jesus is God and an almighty God. To verify that, just trawl through her posts if you can stomach he persistent insults of others.
.
LOL Again you lie . You think by repeating your lies that it makes them true?
I don't believe Jesus is the Almighty Father. Can you get that in your pea brain?
I believe the words Almighty and Mighty are used interchangeably .
Jesus is a God and you would know that if you knew scriptures.
atthew 1:23 -“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated,“God with us.”
Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 43:10,11 -“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,“And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.
Philippians 2:5-7 - Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men.
Titus 2:13 - looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
Hebrews 1:8,9 - But to the Son He (God) says:“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Since: Sep 11

Uckfield, UK

#79 Jun 5, 2012
Dee
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text>LOL Again you lie . You think by repeating your lies that it makes them true?
I don't believe Jesus is the Almighty Father. Can you get that in your pea brain?
I didn't say above that you said Jesus was the almighty *Father*, I said you believe Jesus said that he was the almighty *God*. You're not a pea brain, you just can't get to grips with biblical context, you can't read properly and that is because Satan blinds the minds of the unbeliever. In reality, we should take pity on you... Whatever, when trinitarians say that the Father is God and the son is God and that God is the *one* and *only* true God then in their double speak the son becomes the father. Trinitarians are modalists without realising it.

The rest of your post has been countered an endless amount of times. So repeating your same ridiculous misrepresentation is meaningless.

.
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#80 Jun 5, 2012
Ra88itt wrote:
Dee
<quoted text>
I didn't say above that you said Jesus was the almighty *Father*, I said you believe Jesus said that he was the almighty *God*. You're not a pea brain, you just can't get to grips with biblical context, you can't read properly and that is because Satan blinds the minds of the unbeliever. In reality, we should take pity on you... Whatever, when trinitarians say that the Father is God and the son is God and that God is the *one* and *only* true God then in their double speak the son becomes the father. Trinitarians are modalists without realising it.
The rest of your post has been countered an endless amount of times. So repeating your same ridiculous misrepresentation is meaningless.
.
Since when is quoting scripture a misrepresentation? it is the WT that is meaningless when it contradicts scriptures.
So much for your understanding of Trinitarianism.It is nothing like Modalism. Both Modalist and Trinitarians know the differences but in order for you to continue to believe the lies men tell you are not allowed to know the difference.
Don't you think it is interesting that the WT says if you read the bible alone you will become a Trinitarian? It's too bad you can't get a grip on that for if you did you might learn something that is so important to you and your everlasting life. tHE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. Ra88itt!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
DO the Meek inherit the Earth? (Nov '15) 4 min curtjester1 1,556
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 7 min Irishdub 7,441
You know, churchoids- 11 min the Mad JW 495
Do you churchoids agree with IrishDumb & Dumboy? 28 min the Mad JW 4
Best of the Churchoid Whoppers! (Oct '15) 31 min the Mad JW 248
Unbiased Scholars who have Praised the NWT (Dec '10) 41 min PrufSammy 59
is shunning a pagan practice? 1 hr MAD-XJW 502
Brexit voted out of EU, Globalist Must Crease C... 2 hr I_know_better_now 50
News Judge sanctions Jehovah's Witnesses 3 hr True Christian w... 22
More from around the web