- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2011,00:12) Of course you like the KJV. They doctored the verse to change the meaning by adding their own word “even”, that is not in the Greek text. 
Let's keep it without “even”, since “even” isn't in the original, okay?
You welcomed me as if I were a billionaire, as if I were Bill Gates himself.
Dennison, does this statement mean that Bill Gates IS a billionaire, or IS NOT a billionaire?
mike
The one who is welcomed is neither Bill Gates or a billionaire!
Plus adding that little [a] changes things!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,00:37) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,00:05) I like the KJV better which better presents my point
14And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.Clearly these two things are not the same.
Consider Matthew 10:40The Point is that Jesus is not a Angelic Being.
Paul was FURTHER emphasizing how Important they made him seem.Example: “They were treating me like I was a saint, as If I was even Jesus himself!”
DennisonIf that passage says he wasn't Jesus Christ then it also says he isn't an angel.
He is welcomed “as if” an angel and even as Jesus himself!
So clear.
WJ
WJ
You know I did not think about that.Thanks!
Your Right it makes no sense to believe that Jesus is an angel, especially within the grammer it expresses that Paul is not one.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,16:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,00:37) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,00:05) I like the KJV better which better presents my point
14And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.Clearly these two things are not the same.
Consider Matthew 10:40The Point is that Jesus is not a Angelic Being.
Paul was FURTHER emphasizing how Important they made him seem.Example: “They were treating me like I was a saint, as If I was even Jesus himself!”
DennisonIf that passage says he wasn't Jesus Christ then it also says he isn't an angel.
He is welcomed “as if” an angel and even as Jesus himself!
So clear.
WJ
WJ
You know I did not think about that.Thanks!
Your Right it makes no sense to believe that Jesus is an angel, especially within the grammer it expresses that Paul is not one.
DennisonTrue. Also Mike says he was an “angel in the flesh” when he walked this earth, but Hebrews 2:7 says…
“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;…
If he was an “angel” then how could he be “inferior” (made) lower than the “angels”?
More proof he was not an angel.
WJ
WJ said:
Quote Dennison True. Also Mike says he was an “angel in the flesh” when he walked this earth, but Hebrews 2:7 says…
“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;…
If he was an “angel” then how could he be “inferior” (made) lower than the “angels”?
More proof he was not an angel.
Hi Keith,At God's right hand Jesus is CLEARLY contrasted to the angels.
Quote 13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: “ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
Jesus is at God's right hand and the angels are “sent forth” to minister to the heirs of salvation.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 02 2011,13:31) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 31 2011,22:24) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,21:12) Hi All, Mikeboll64 (Mikey old person) believes Jesus is god the Angel, however he does not believe in the Trinity Doctrine. This is because he believes Jesus to be an Angel.
I was hoping he could show some scriptural support of this theory, one scripture at a time, so we could come to understand why he believes this way, and either support or refute his understanding with scriptures.
peace and love,
Dennison
Dwhat scripture would support that idea ??
Pierre
Hi PeirreIt comes right out of “Watchtower” the heretical publication of the JWs.
WJ
WJyou have not respond to the later quote ,we are going back ward
Pierre
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Mar. 31 2011,23:30) What if i Said: “Man they treat me like a billionaire, as if Im the President himself” .
Hi D,If you did say that, my very first thought would be: “What? The President is not a billionaire……………I don't get it.”
Now if you said, “Man they treat me like a billionaire, OR as if Im the President himself”, then I would get your point that they treated you as any number of VIP's. By adding the word “OR”, you could keep going and adding other various VIP's that don't have to have anything in common. For instance, you could add “OR Brad Pitt, OR Kid Rock, OR Pope Benedict”, etc. And that was obviously the goal the KJV had in mind by adding the word “EVEN”, though it's nowhere to be found in the Greek text. You see? THEY knew what you claim not to know. THEY knew that without adding “EVEN” or “OR”, people would assume from that statement that Jesus WAS an angel. So they had to “doctor” it so no one made that assumption.
Do you understand how the word “OR” or the word “EVEN” opens the statement up to include comparisons to persons of OTHER groups? And do you understand that without the word “OR” or the word “EVEN”, the second comparison must be linked to the first comparison, or it woudn't make sense. Much like your mock-up sentence immediately makes me wonder what you meant because the President ISN'T a billionaire, Paul's sentence would also make people think, “What? But Jesus isn't an angel, so what does that mean?” Unless of course, Jesus IS an angel of God.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,13:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 01 2011,00:12) Of course you like the KJV. They doctored the verse to change the meaning by adding their own word “even”, that is not in the Greek text. Let's keep it without “even”, since “even” isn't in the original, okay?
You welcomed me as if I were a billionaire, as if I were Bill Gates himself.
Dennison, does this statement mean that Bill Gates IS a billionaire, or IS NOT a billionaire?
mike
The one who is welcomed is neither Bill Gates or a billionaire!
Plus adding that little [a] changes things!
WJ
What are you talking about? What “a” did I add? The original says “an” angel of God, right?
(Well actually, the “an” is implied, and therefore added into all English translations.)And you are right that Paul is not claiming to be an angel of God or Jesus himself, and the person in my mock-up is not claiming to be a billionaire or Bill Gates.
What does that have to do with the fact that in order for Paul's comparisons to work, both comparisons had to be of the same category?
For example, if I said, “You welcomed me as if I were a VIP, as if I were a bum on the street”, the statement makes no sense because a “bum on the street” is not considered a “VIP”.
For the statement to make sense, the writer must say “VIP”, and then for the second comparison, list someone who actually IS a VIP. So in order for Paul's comparison to work, after he says “an angel of God”, he must then list someone who actually IS an angel of God.
For example, he could have said, “You welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Michael himself.” Or “Gabriel himself”. Or any other known name of an angel of God.
Keith, do you see that the KJV, NKJV, BBE and NLT translators add the word “even”, that they pulled right out of thin air, because THEY knew what I'm now telling you?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,13:37) If that passage says he wasn't Jesus Christ then it also says he isn't an angel.
That's EXACTLY what Paul is saying. Even though just a man, he was welcomed as an angel, like he was the angel of God, Christ himself. So now it's time for the clarification of “angel” that Dennison requested. Here's what we all know, whether we want to admit it or not:1. “Angel” means “messenger”. Plain and simple. So any messenger could be called by the name “angel”, as the two human spies Joshua sent out were called. (The ones the harlot hid, and then lowered out her window.)
2. Although both the Hebrew and the Greek words simply mean “messenger”, there is an understanding that many times that particular messenger is a spirit being who dwells in the heavens, has wings, and can make itself visible to humans if need be.
3. So even though “angel” could refer to a spirit being, Paul could very well have been saying he was welcomed as a man who was known to be bringing a message from God, just as the man Jesus Christ brought messages from God to the people of earth. And with THAT understanding, you could argue that Jesus isn't one of the spirit being messengers with wings, but you would still have to admit that he is an “angel of God”, simply because he is a “messenger of God”.
No matter how you slice it, if Jesus EVER spoke God's message to anyone, then Jesus is an “angel of God”. There are no two ways about it.
I should have clarified D's OP from the start, but I'll do it now. My beliefs are:
1. Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. He is also the firstborn Son of God and the only Son who was said to be begotten by God. That makes Jesus a powerful spirit being. Wings or not, I do not know.
2. All other spirit being messengers of God were created through Jesus, so one would assume that Jesus is higher than the ones created through him. But that is not necessarily the case. For as God's firstborn, he would have been entitled to a double share of the inheritence, and no more. Being firstborn did not entitle one to lord it over their other siblings, ie: the other sons of God. And you'll notice that it's not until the Lamb is deemed worthy to open the scroll, and God again brings His firstborn into the world, that the angels bow to him. There is nothing said about them bowing to him before this happens, and the fact that Paul specifies that it will happen when Jesus returns on the clouds leads me to assume the angels do not bow to Jesus now, nor have they in the past.
Also, the angel that John bowed to in Rev doesn't tell him to bow to God AND JESUS, but only to God. So the time when all knees will bow to Jesus has apparently not yet arrived.
That being said, I recognize that Jesus is the only one to sit at the right hand of God Almighty Himself. That is a position of utmost honor and power that is bestowed upon one who is deemed worthy in the eyes of the One who exalted him to that esteemed position. That position in itself places Jesus above any other angel (messenger of God). That position makes Jesus a mighty ruler, and therefore a god. Just as Satan is a mighty ruler in his own right, and also a god.
So Dennison's wording about “god the angel” is not exactly how I would have worded it. But now you know the truth of the matter, like it or not. Jesus IS an angel of God because he spoke the message of his God. And Jesus IS a god, because he is a powerful ruler.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,04:53) Hi D, If you did say that, my very first thought would be: “What? The President is not a billionaire……………I don't get it.”
Hello Mike the white wizard,Well I dont believe the President to be a Billionaire sooo unless someone is ignorant over his finances at the moment, it would be an error to say so.
I dropped “even” or “OR” in the same sense me must drop “as if” as well because its not stated within the greek.
Now we can argue how it SHOULD be translated and if it is GRAMMTICALLY possible to translate it that way
Actually Pauls point is about how important they treat him.
the category is holiness.Im going answer the other post because we have a huge dilema in understanding, which why this current arguement is now irrvelant.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,05:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 01 2011,13:37) If that passage says he wasn't Jesus Christ then it also says he isn't an angel.
That's EXACTLY what Paul is saying. Even though just a man, he was welcomed as an angel, like he was the angel of God, Christ himself. So now it's time for the clarification of “angel” that Dennison requested. Here's what we all know, whether we want to admit it or not:1. “Angel” means “messenger”. Plain and simple. So any messenger could be called by the name “angel”, as the two human spies Joshua sent out were called. (The ones the harlot hid, and then lowered out her window.)
2. Although both the Hebrew and the Greek words simply mean “messenger”, there is an understanding that many times that particular messenger is a spirit being who dwells in the heavens, has wings, and can make itself visible to humans if need be.
3. So even though “angel” could refer to a spirit being, Paul could very well have been saying he was welcomed as a man who was known to be bringing a message from God, just as the man Jesus Christ brought messages from God to the people of earth. And with THAT understanding, you could argue that Jesus isn't one of the spirit being messengers with wings, but you would still have to admit that he is an “angel of God”, simply because he is a “messenger of God”.
No matter how you slice it, if Jesus EVER spoke God's message to anyone, then Jesus is an “angel of God”. There are no two ways about it.
I should have clarified D's OP from the start, but I'll do it now. My beliefs are:
Hi Mike,
Thank you for clarifying.1. Than we are almost all angels in sense.
2. Though the greek word simply means “messenger” its also used to identify a certain spiritual race such as Jesus mentioned at one time.
Matthew 26:53 (King James Version)
53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
These angels are not men, and are heavely hosts, or also called Sons of God.
So the word angel though it means messenger is not always in reference to only a messenger but to identify a certain race.For example my name is Dennison, and my name simply means Son of Dennis. Just because my name means thats doesnt mean my Father is named Dennis.
Its a word with a meaning to identify an individual.3. I did some research and I think the translation is closer to that than anything else stated.
Mike It does matter how “we” slice it. Im using the term angel (being) as reference to Spirit beings that have wings and are known to serve God as seperate holy beings that were created by God and also by Jesus.
Lets define things clearly, Jesus is the Redeemer our savouir who revealed the Father, so he did bring a message, a gospel.
But, he is not part of this spirit beings.
So my OP is in reference for YOU TO PROVE how he is part of the spirit beings. So you DID NOT DO SO.If you ALREADY knew, that Paul defined angel at the particular moment as “messenger” than why would you use that to prove that Jesus is a “Angelic spirit being”?
That is my arguement, that he is not part of this particular group.
Please show me your proof.Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,05:52) So Dennison's wording about “god the angel” is not exactly how I would have worded it. But now you know the truth of the matter, like it or not. Jesus IS an angel of God because he spoke the message of his God. And Jesus IS a god, because he is a powerful ruler. peace and love,
mike
Mike,
You very well know im not trying to argue if Jesus deliverd a message or not.
What im arugeing agaisnt is that Jesus is not an angel (being) which has nothign to do with being a messenger but a particular holy creature or whatever you want to call it.Jesus is GOD because The father and Jesus are one.
So choosing “RULER” amoung many possible definitions doesnt cut it.You cant cherry pick your way out of this one mike
Okay, let me get this straight. You agree that Jesus IS an angel, because he spoke the message of God, right?
So now what? Are you now trying to say that Jesus is NOT a spirit being? Because the last time I looked into it, Jesus is both a spirit being AND a messenger of his God.
Don't these two facts cover BOTH of the meanings of “angel” that we've discussed?
mike
Quote (terraricca @ April 01 2011,12:15) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 02 2011,00:35) Mike you also state that Angels are referred to “sons of God” to KJ several times, so this cannot mean that you define angel solely as “messenger”?
SFyes in the book of Geneses and Job they are called sons of God
but it seems wen they are send to men they are now called messenger,
do you think that because they are called sons of God in heaven ,and that God send some to meet men or do a work,they are now become messenger to men not to God,but they would be still sons of God ,no??
if my father send me to the bakery for bread and because that duty would i loose my status of being the son of my father??
Pierre
Pierre,I dont think you understand the arguements im presenting.
Im stating that Jesus is not a “Angelic being” which has nothing to do with being called a “messenger”
also, there are several scriptures that speak of angels who dont deliver a message, so therefore what are they and why are they called angels?
So thats my point pierre, that there must be MORE to it than that.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,07:16) Okay, let me get this straight. You agree that Jesus IS an angel, because he spoke the message of God, right? So now what? Are you now trying to say that Jesus is NOT a spirit being? Because the last time I looked into it, Jesus is both a spirit being AND a messenger of his God.
Don't these two facts cover BOTH of the meanings of “angel” that we've discussed?
mike
Mike,Jesus had a message so he was a “messenger” in a sense amoung being a Redeemer, Savioir, King of kings, and several other things.
I disagree in what you stated that he is,
You have stated several times that “Jesus is the second most powerful being” and you also tried to prove that Jesus is “firstborn amoung the sons of God in heaven”So im argueing that he is not part of that Group.
again, im defning angel in correlation of the class of holy spiritual beings that are not God, that have wings, that dance and sing and do alot of things.AGain, God is spirit, which doesnt make him an Angel.
Get what im sayin?
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,20:20) also, there are several scriptures that speak of angels who dont deliver a message, so therefore what are they and why are they called angels?
There are also loads of scriptures that don't deal with King David actually ruling on anything. Does that mean he wasn't the King during those times?mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,07:27) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,20:20) also, there are several scriptures that speak of angels who dont deliver a message, so therefore what are they and why are they called angels?
There are also loads of scriptures that don't deal with King David actually ruling on anything. Does that mean he wasn't the King during those times?mike
No matter what David does he will always be HUMAN.Thats not what we are discussing.
Your stateing that Jesus is an angel in the same sense Gaberial and Michael are.
I disagree with you, so PROVE your theory.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 02 2011,20:20) Quote (terraricca @ April 01 2011,12:15) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 02 2011,00:35) Mike you also state that Angels are referred to “sons of God” to KJ several times, so this cannot mean that you define angel solely as “messenger”?
SFyes in the book of Geneses and Job they are called sons of God
but it seems wen they are send to men they are now called messenger,
do you think that because they are called sons of God in heaven ,and that God send some to meet men or do a work,they are now become messenger to men not to God,but they would be still sons of God ,no??
if my father send me to the bakery for bread and because that duty would i loose my status of being the son of my father??
Pierre
Pierre,I dont think you understand the arguements im presenting.
Im stating that Jesus is not a “Angelic being” which has nothing to do with being called a “messenger”
also, there are several scriptures that speak of angels who dont deliver a message, so therefore what are they and why are they called angels?
So thats my point pierre, that there must be MORE to it than that.
SFall the angels are created and are all part of the plan of God on this planet ,
what happen in Eden as also implicated the angelic figures ,they also are to be judged ,God as created all free in there will ,
this is why if Jesus preexisted it would not change anything what he did as servant to his father on earth is reflected in heaven,and it is a plus to his name.this was his choice.and it will be ours as well.
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ April 02 2011,07:54) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 02 2011,20:20) Quote (terraricca @ April 01 2011,12:15) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 02 2011,00:35) Mike you also state that Angels are referred to “sons of God” to KJ several times, so this cannot mean that you define angel solely as “messenger”?
SFyes in the book of Geneses and Job they are called sons of God
but it seems wen they are send to men they are now called messenger,
do you think that because they are called sons of God in heaven ,and that God send some to meet men or do a work,they are now become messenger to men not to God,but they would be still sons of God ,no??
if my father send me to the bakery for bread and because that duty would i loose my status of being the son of my father??
Pierre
Pierre,I dont think you understand the arguements im presenting.
Im stating that Jesus is not a “Angelic being” which has nothing to do with being called a “messenger”
also, there are several scriptures that speak of angels who dont deliver a message, so therefore what are they and why are they called angels?
So thats my point pierre, that there must be MORE to it than that.
SFall the angels are created and are all part of the plan of God on this planet ,
what happen in Eden as also implicated the angelic figures ,they also are to be judged ,God as created all free in there will ,
this is why if Jesus preexisted it would not change anything what he did as servant to his father on earth is reflected in heaven,and it is a plus to his name.this was his choice.and it will be ours as well.
Pierre
Your still not getting it pierre.I dont know how else to explain the current situation to you.
so just take a minute are observe what we are talking about.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 02 2011,20:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 02 2011,07:27) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 01 2011,20:20) also, there are several scriptures that speak of angels who dont deliver a message, so therefore what are they and why are they called angels?
There are also loads of scriptures that don't deal with King David actually ruling on anything. Does that mean he wasn't the King during those times?mike
No matter what David does he will always be HUMAN.Thats not what we are discussing.
Your stateing that Jesus is an angel in the same sense Gaberial and Michael are.
I disagree with you, so PROVE your theory.
SFi am not in accord with what you say so prove it
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ April 01 2011,21:17) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ April 02 2011,20:35) I disagree with you, so PROVE your theory.
SFi am not in accord with what you say so prove it
Pierre
See how it sounds, D? “I don't agree with you, SO PROVE IT!” Anyway, what's left to prove? Jesus IS a spirit being, and Jesus IS a messenger. What more is required to be an angel of God? Paul calls him an angel in Gal 4:14, and asks which one of the angels God called His begotten Son in Hebrews 1. Well D? Which one of the angels DID God call his begotten Son? It was Jesus, wasn't it?
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
