Michael the Archangel “one who is God.”

Since: Jul 09

St. Paul

#1005 Feb 2, 2013
That's two sentences.

And since he's a liar you have to figure which one is false.
Lay Worker

Myrtleford, Australia

#1006 Feb 2, 2013
djconklin wrote:
The lost whopper can't follow the flow of a conversation. This isn't about a "Triune Trinity" (which is redundant).
If we compare the RCC catechism and FB#2 (and later LW expanded the claim to include FB #4), what do we find?
.
The trickery of the Triune Trinity will never remain redundant. Such a slide of hand from CON McDOODLE illustrates the naivity of the desperate CON McDOODLE.

CON McDOODLE will come out and say FB #2 is different to the central dogma of the LITTLE HORN and not once has provided any subtantive evidence.

The eternal divinity of Ho Logos was testified by John.

Yet a predicament remains constant for SDAs and Evangelicals together [ECT ?] who willingly acknowledge the central doctrine of the LITLE HORN and like the man with the pointy hat defeats the righteousness of Christ.

the man with the pointy hat accepted Protestants form of baptism was ok and based it on guess what! The man with the pointy hat said they worship the same god of allah as well.

http://christiannews.net/2013/01/30/protestan...


“The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he explained.“In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.”

Comparitively this is seen in Adventism as follows

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.H ...

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02 ....

do the comparisons
note the borrowing of the concepts and language
all from the LITTLE HORN

And yes it all determinate upon
Michael one who is like God.

Since: Jul 09

St. Paul

#1007 Feb 2, 2013
>CON McDOODLE will come out and say FB #2 is different to the central dogma of the LITTLE HORN and not once has provided any subtantive evidence.

I never made that claim. So, I have no burden of proof--you do, since you claim that I made it.

>do the comparisons
note the borrowing of the concepts and language
all from the LITTLE HORN

Been there done that. You were exposed as a liar:

If we compare the RCC catechism and FB#2 (and later LW expanded the claim to include FB #4), what do we find?

Here's the texts that both use in common--no other similarity:

1) John 3:16

2) 2 Cor. 5:19 -- "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

3) John 1:29 -- The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.[See also verse 33. Who is speaking?]

4) 1 John 4:2 -- Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

5) John 1:14 (used twice?)-- And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

6) Phil. 2:6, 7 -- Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

7) Mark 1:15 -- And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

8) Matt. 21:9 -- And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Lay Worker

Myrtleford, Australia

#1008 Feb 2, 2013
Lay Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
The trickery of the Triune Trinity will never remain redundant. Such a slide of hand from CON McDOODLE illustrates the naivity of the desperate CON McDOODLE.
CON McDOODLE will come out and say FB #2 is different to the central dogma of the LITTLE HORN and not once has provided any subtantive evidence.
The eternal divinity of Ho Logos was testified by John.
Yet a predicament remains constant for SDAs and Evangelicals together [ECT ?] who willingly acknowledge the central doctrine of the LITLE HORN and like the man with the pointy hat defeats the righteousness of Christ.
the man with the pointy hat accepted Protestants form of baptism was ok and based it on guess what! The man with the pointy hat said they worship the same god of allah as well.
http://christiannews.net/2013/01/30/protestan...
“The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he explained.“In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.”
Comparitively this is seen in Adventism as follows
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.H ...
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02 ....
do the comparisons
note the borrowing of the concepts and language
all from the LITTLE HORN
And yes it all determinate upon
Michael one who is like God.
Unanswered - and of course CON McDOODLE has no credibility

Try a lot harder

Since: Jul 09

St. Paul

#1009 Feb 2, 2013
If we compare the RCC catechism and FB#2 (and later LW expanded the claim to include FB #4), what do we find?

Here's the texts that both use in common--no other similarity:

1) John 3:16

2) 2 Cor. 5:19 -- "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

3) John 1:29 -- The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.[See also verse 33. Who is speaking?]

4) 1 John 4:2 -- Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

5) John 1:14 (used twice?)-- And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

6) Phil. 2:6, 7 -- Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

7) Mark 1:15 -- And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

8) Matt. 21:9 -- And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

Who has the credibility? The liar or the one who exposes the liar?
Lay Worker

Myrtleford, Australia

#1010 Feb 2, 2013
Lay Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
The trickery of the Triune Trinity will never remain redundant. Such a slide of hand from CON McDOODLE illustrates the naivity of the desperate CON McDOODLE.
CON McDOODLE will come out and say FB #2 is different to the central dogma of the LITTLE HORN and not once has provided any subtantive evidence.
The eternal divinity of Ho Logos was testified by John.
Yet a predicament remains constant for SDAs and Evangelicals together [ECT ?] who willingly acknowledge the central doctrine of the LITLE HORN and like the man with the pointy hat defeats the righteousness of Christ.
the man with the pointy hat accepted Protestants form of baptism was ok and based it on guess what! The man with the pointy hat said they worship the same god of allah as well.
http://christiannews.net/2013/01/30/protestan...
“The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he explained.“In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.”
Comparitively this is seen in Adventism as follows
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.H ...
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02 ....
do the comparisons
note the borrowing of the concepts and language
all from the LITTLE HORN
And yes it all determinate upon
Michael one who is like God.
unanswerable
Robert Two

Australia

#1011 Feb 2, 2013
djconklin wrote:
If we compare the RCC catechism and FB#2 (and later LW expanded the claim to include FB #4), what do we find?
Here's the texts that both use in common--no other similarity:
1) John 3:16
2) 2 Cor. 5:19 -- "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
3) John 1:29 -- The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.[See also verse 33. Who is speaking?]
4) 1 John 4:2 -- Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
5) John 1:14 (used twice?)-- And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
6) Phil. 2:6, 7 -- Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
7) Mark 1:15 -- And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
8) Matt. 21:9 -- And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Who has the credibility? The liar or the one who exposes the liar?
GOD the FATHER,
GOD the SON,
GOD the HOLY GHOST.

Give the BIBLE text that claims 3 gods.
Robert Two

Australia

#1012 Feb 2, 2013
djconklin wrote:
>Is Jesus not our God?
The Bible says that
2 John 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
I count two.
EGW 2 PERSONAGES.
But only ONE GOD AND NO OTHER.

The FATHER is GOD.
Crazy Baptist

Hopkins, SC

#1013 Feb 2, 2013
djconklin wrote:
>Is Jesus not our God?
The Bible says that
2 John 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
But you say that "There is only one God."
I count two.
1) That's not all the bible says brother.

2) I didn't say there is only one God. God said there is only one God. Jesus said there is only one God. Moses said there is only one God. The bible through and through teaches there is only one God.

3) The Lay Worker testifies there are two as well. If we are to count the individual entities that comprise God as we understand God - I count three.

Yet God is one.

Mark 12:32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him".

CB
Crazy Baptist

Hopkins, SC

#1014 Feb 2, 2013
Robert Two wrote:
<quoted text>EGW 2 PERSONAGES.
But only ONE GOD AND NO OTHER.
The FATHER is GOD.
Yes He is R2. But Jesus is God as well.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Who is at the Father's side if not Jesus?

CB
Crazy Baptist

Hopkins, SC

#1015 Feb 2, 2013
djconklin wrote:
>Is Jesus not our God?
The Bible says that
2 John 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
But you say that "There is only one God."
I count two.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."

I count one

CB
Robert Two

Darwin, Australia

#1016 Feb 2, 2013
Crazy Baptist wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes He is R2. But Jesus is God as well.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Who is at the Father's side if not Jesus?
CB
You are agreeing with me but trying at the same time is disagree ?

WHY?
Robert Two

Darwin, Australia

#1017 Feb 2, 2013
Crazy Baptist wrote:
<quoted text>
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."
I count one
CB
The FATHER can be represented by the sON at anytime.
Crazy Baptist

Hopkins, SC

#1018 Feb 2, 2013
Robert Two wrote:
<quoted text>You are agreeing with me but trying at the same time is disagree ?
WHY?
I agree the Father IS God.

I also KNOW Jesus the Son is as well.

From your words it appears you deny Jesus is God.

I simply provided scripture to correct that.

Jesus is God.

CB
Crazy Baptist

Hopkins, SC

#1019 Feb 2, 2013
Robert Two wrote:
<quoted text>
The FATHER can be represented by the sON at anytime.
He (The Son) is the EXACT representation of the Father.

Of course Jesus can represent Him.

They are one.

Not one entity but one in divine nature.

God is one.

CB
meandthetrees

El Centro, CA

#1020 Feb 2, 2013
Lay Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
UNfortunately the treehugger has missed the point and diverts off into oneo fthose fanciful ideas in the application the 70 weeks of Dan 9 imposing it into chapter 12.
The treehugger remains deficient in Scriptural authority and also its easy to see remains unable to identify exactly just who is Michael let alone the importance of who Michael is.
Oh, I will let you know who Michael is. So far I showed that Michael really means Who is God? Meaning a rhetorical question, implying no person is like God.- That is the real Hebrew meaning.

And your question was "can the treehugger care to explain why the time of trouble commences when Michael stands"

You are just interpreting the book wrong, just like William Miller did when with his date settings. I already showed you in my short description, and I see, I will have to explain in detail tomorrow.

the thing is if Jesus wrote that a name that no one will know before the 2nd coming. Then why are the Adventist so crazy about trying to be the first to figure it out? When our Lord doesn't want you to do that? It is like a surprise gift and your trying to peek inside.
Lay Worker

Myrtleford, Australia

#1021 Feb 2, 2013
Crazy Baptist wrote:
<quoted text>
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."
I count one
CB
The count is TWO

and as its explained by MOSES
in the account of GENESIS

ECHAD - two, but one..

eg.,- Adam and Eve were pronounced one flesh --
echad one Gen 2:24

,,, but two Beings,
two Identities
albeit one flesh.

Same principle of The "US" in Gen 1:26
when They said - Let Us make man in Our image.
Lone Worker
#1022 Feb 3, 2013
Jesus said God is a Spirit. Jesus never said he was God. After Jesus was baptized the Spirit of God was with him and after Jesus past the test of all temptation, God remained with him and when men had seen Jesus they had also seen the father. Jesus was given all power in heaven and earth and he ascended to the right hand of God in heaven and he and his father are now one.
Lone Worker
#1023 Feb 3, 2013
God knew the end from the beginning and Jesus was with God and the plan of salvation of man from the beginning and only God knows when Jesus will return in that day of judgement that is sure to come.
Robert Two

Australia

#1024 Feb 3, 2013
Crazy Baptist wrote:
<quoted text>
He (The Son) is the EXACT representation of the Father.
Of course Jesus can represent Him.
They are one.
Not one entity but one in divine nature.
God is one.
CB
Cb
Let me help you.
GOD created man US IN OUR IMAGE>
Right ?

ADAM & EVE were 2 seperate people.
ADAM was a male person EVE was a female person.
But GOD married them they were UNDER CONTRACT = WITH.
They are now ONE FLESH.

But ADAM is still ADAM & EVE is still EVE.

GOD is a SURNAME so the WORD became JESUS the SON of GOD.
John 1:1 says the WORD was WITH GOD.
So then GOD had a contract WITH the WORD. They were FAMILY.
You see they are only ONE because they are FAMILY.
Not one and the same BEING.

EVE was ONE because she was MRS.ADAM.

LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE .

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.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Sunday work is a danger to our health and safety" 2 hr Eyeswideopen 14
Poll Where was Jesus' Spirit for 3 Days? 3 hr Peter 122
ALF's method of bringing souls to Christ 6 hr Dusk 9
The Sealing of the 144,000 7 hr Pastor Pootje 6
Emergy Power of the Everlasting Gospel - by All... 11 hr Lay Worker 61
Erroneous Ideas About God The Father 19 hr Survival of the R... 1
They Were Afraid of the Judgement Until They Ne... 19 hr Survival of the R... 1
More from around the web