- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi david,
I realise there are parts of the bible you find intolerable but you should address that in the correct thread.It is not the Bible I find intolerable. Rather, it is you slandering God in the worst way possible, saying that he does something no loving parent would do.
Hi david,
God does not accept that all men are His children.
He says through Paul that those outside of the law will perish without reference to the Law in Rom 2.That is why the message of salvation is so important and men should not be distracted by those offering denominational support ahead of salvation itself.
We should really stick to the correct thread Nick, as you said. But I did not say that “all men are His children.” I only said that it's obvious that a loving parent wouldn't put her sons hand in the fire when he sinned, much less put the whole child in the fire for eternity for that sin.
For those who have come to know what love and justice are, it is unthinkable that God would do such a thing.Hi david,
Many design their own god according to their definitions of goodness. That is unwise as we need to see Him as He really is and fear Him.“God is love.”
That's what I believe.
It's in the Bible Nick.
Maybe it's the word “love” that you're having a problem with.
Is “love” synonamous with “torture” of the worst kind? Does “torture” fit into any of YOUR definitions of “love.”
Nick, if you think it is loving to torture people by burning them alive, please provide a scriptural reference that connects “love” with “torture.”
It is “loving” to put the wicked to death, so that the righteous do not have to contend with wickedness for all time. Who is God showing love to if He were to create unimaginable torture for wicked people for all time?
I don't know about you, but knowing that God torturing people forever is going on somewhere does not create a peaceful feeling in my mind. You're walking through the grass. God is torturing people as you walk through the grass. How relaxing to know that. You're playing with your children. You look down at your child with love. And at the same time, many are being burned alive. How comforting to know that is happening. God is love, Nick. It's in the Bible. It's the first thing you should have learned.
david.
Let's stop talking about this in the wrong thread.
Hi davd,
Show us a scripture that says God's love is the same as human love.This is the love of God
Jn 3
'16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
And his only begotten son is not Michael, but it is Jesus Christ who came in the flesh.Quote Hi davd,
Show us a scripture that says God's love is the same as human love.God's love isn't the same as human love. God's love is perfect.
Show us a scripture that says it's a loving thing to torture people for all time. Logic and dictionaries and common sense tell us otherwise. So, show a scripture. When people torture people, it's bad. But when God does it, it's loving, because God can't be judged by our limited sight. Is this what you're saying.
Nick, God's justice and love are far greater then ours.
“Therefore, if YOU, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to YOUR children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!”
We can compare God's good gifts to our limited own.
If we, although being wicked, wouldn't take our kid and light him on fire, “how much more so” would our loving Heavenly Father reject such a thought!Hi ,
According to the Word of God in Daniel ,Jesus, the prince of princes, the messiah,
is not Michael, one of the chief princes, who is the angel who is over God's chosen people.What do you mean? Where does it say that “Jesus…is not Michael”?
Or is it only implied? (just as other things are implied)Hi david,
If it does not state that Jesus is Michael then no one should say he is any more that they should say he is Gabriel or Moses.Ah, but a minute ago, you said:
“According to the Word of God in Daniel ,Jesus . . . is not Michael.”Now, you state:
“If it does not state that Jesus is Michael then no one should say he is.”Hi david,
You are right that scripture does not say what I said.Neither does it say that Jesus is Michael so that is why we do not teach that.
Quote Hi david,
You are right that scripture does not say what I said.That's ok Nick. We all make mistakes.
Quote POINT 6
JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
Commenting on one aspect of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul wrote:
“because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16) (NWT)
If Jesus is not the archangel in this event and he is superior to the archangel, then why would he perform this act as though he was someone of lower rank? Wouldn’t he be using an archangel’s voice because he is an archangel?
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael.
It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.” Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority?
For example, a king is above a noble. If you have a king, someone in great power and he calls out something of importance, you wouldn’t say: ‘He called out with a nobles voice,’ unless the King was a also a noble. If the king wasn’t a noble, you would say: He called out with the voice of a king. To say he called out with a nobles voice would be to diminish him, UNLESS HE WAS BOTH A NOBLE AND A KING.
It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14)
If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ.POINT 6B
Also, notice the second half of 1 Thess 4:16: “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
Now let’s look at Jesus’ words:
““Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:25-29)
A comparison of these two scriptures seems to indicate that Jesus and Michael are the same person.
It is Jehovah’s will for Jesus to resurrect the dead. (John 6:38-40) Jesus issues “a commanding call” to the dead to come forth, just as he did on occasion while on earth. (John 11:43) But now he calls, not with a man’s voice as he did then, but with all the power of “an archangel’s voice” (en pho·né arkh·ag·gélou). However, only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice! And no one but Jesus has been given the authority to resurrect the dead. Again, at John 5 and 1 Thessalonians we see the same event–one names Michael, and one names Jesus.POINT 6C
For those who said: ‘It was just an archangels voice accompanying Jesus, but it wasn’t Jesus himself who had the commanding call.’ John 5:25,28 solves the problem: “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God.” So in 1 thessalonians, its the archangel's voice, but in John 5, it is the voice of the Son of God! One cannot be wrong and the other right. Michael the Archangel must be Jesus! In both Thessalonians and John we see that the voice causes the resurrection of life. The dead in Christ will rise when they hear His voice! This is the same event and Jesus and Michael must be the same person.Quote No. You're wrong on this too, Is 1:18. Why do YOU get to decide precicely how many subjects we can discuss and the order of rebuttels. You asked for 2 points. I gave you 3, all connected to one scripture. Rebut. Hi David….finally got to this, sorry it's taken a while. Well to be honest with you David there is nothing much to rebut. I see no real evidence in what you have submitted (cut and pasted), that lends credibility to the assertion that Jesus and MTA are the same person. The plain truth is there is nothing in the grammar or context of 1 Thess 4:16 that tangibly links the angel's “voice” with the descending subject…nothing. In fact it's far more likely that the source of the voice and the “the Lord” are entirely different identities….I mean if a King was making a grandiose entrance before his subjects, with all the attendant pageantry that goes along with such events, including trumpets….would it be logical to conclude that the trumpet-blower was the King purely on the basis that the trumpet blast ostensibly co-incides with the entrance?? Hardly….and yet this is what the Watchtower believes…..It just seems so patently contrived, such a forced interpretation…can't you recognise the inherent weakness in this conjectural argument? I'd be genuinely surprised if you can't.
Hypothetically speaking, if Yahshua was tried in a Court of Law on the charge of being Michael the Archangel, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16 was the prosecution council's key piece of incriminating evidence – my money would definitely be on an acquittal!!
Blessings
t8 never answered to my reply way back. O well, wherever I may Roam…
Wonder
Wanderer
Nomad
Vagabond
Call me what you will!
Hi casey,
You wrote to t8.
He is a busy man.
“The Trinity is a HUGE problem and therefore is a main concern. Reitterating that the Godhead is SO important it determines much of where I will worship. It seems that most nerely none of the groups I seem to find not adhere to much of what I believe and some of what I believe can be compromised (such as what day of worship, predestination…etc,etc) others I cannot and should no longer compromise such as the immortal spirit of man being wrong. However, there are evangelicals that teach this but where they teach I do not know.My biggest issue though is the Trinity and what Bible I should be using. That is a big deal to me. Don't ask me why but it is. It is just that when I look for God in His Word I want to be confident that what I am reading IS His Word and not question what I am reading is wrong. I am pretty sure that the manuscripts of the KJV are most likely not the best to choose from and therefore the KJV would not be my choice of a Bible. There is a plethora of Bible Translators and theologians who have credentials and degrees in this field that have concluded such and who am I to question them? “
Then you appended from Donna
“I spoke with Father Michael for about 15 minutes this morning. I am going to go ahead and finish the annulment because it is going to be really easy. It will only take a few months (2-5) or shorter because we weren't baptized. They pretty much just need to call Nathan and send him a form to fill out and that is about it. He recommended that even if I wasn't going to do RCIA to continue with it for closure. We had a long conversation about your “search” for the true church and correct doctrine. He said that he figured we bailed since we haven't been there. He asked if you were obsessive compulsive? Apparently he could since something visiting with you and the roller coaster that you have been on. Did you talk to him at all about your disorder? He wasn't being mean and I know emails appear to be what they aren't so don't take offense to it. I just thought it was ironic since I asked you that the other night.”You covered a huge amount of material on a wide scope.
It strikes me that you are uncertain and get confused by experts following one false trail and then another in a desperate search for the right foundation and have yet to be sure you are standing on the rock. I admire your honesty and forthright approach and have some suggestions.
Forget the paths of foolish men no matter how highly praised by other men. No man compares with our Master and the men he anointed to continue his work. No teacher compares with Jesus and the Spirit. Go back to basics and look at what Jesus teaches.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God.
A man cannot enter the kingdom unless he is born again of water and the Spirit.
A wise man digs deep and lays his foundation on the bible, the teachings of Jesus.
Only one foundation stone can be laid-Jesus Christ.Once you have obeyed God then demand daily of your new Father that He give you that promised Spirit [Lk 11] so that you will not need one particular bible version but the Spirit will show you what He wrote through men in all them. Stop doubting and take your own responsibility to obey God and He will bless you and show you the lies men have been feeding you in His name.
I hope this helps and God blesses your sincerity.
Thank You David for your kind words. I don't think it is so much that I am confused on what I believe but get confused when scholars disagree with my treatise on some of these topics.
I agree with you wholeheartledy that we should follow God not men but we need fellowship. Where do you go if I may ask?
Hi Casey,
Fear of man is a trap.
Fearing God is the foundation of wisdom.
God is not a God of confusion but of peace and all the confusion comes from the folly of men.Quote Hi David….finally got to this, sorry it's taken a while. Well to be honest with you David there is nothing much to rebut. I see no real evidence in what you have submitted (cut and pasted), that lends credibility to the assertion that Jesus and MTA are the same person. The plain truth is there is nothing in the grammar or context of 1 Thess 4:16 that tangibly links the angel's “voice” with the descending subject…nothing. In fact it's far more likely that the source of the voice and the “the Lord” are entirely different identities….I mean if a King was making a grandiose entrance before his subjects, with all the attendant pageantry that goes along with such events, including trumpets….would it be logical to conclude that the trumpet-blower was the King purely on the basis that the trumpet blast ostensibly co-incides with the entrance?? Hardly….and yet this is what the Watchtower believes…..It just seems so patently contrived, such a forced interpretation…can't you recognise the inherent weakness in this conjectural argument? I'd be genuinely surprised if you can't. Hypothetically speaking, if Yahshua was tried in a Court of Law on the charge of being Michael the Archangel, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16 was the prosecution council's key piece of incriminating evidence – my money would definitely be on an acquittal!!
If you can't rebut it Is 1:18, and can only say what you have, that's fine.
You're money would also be on Jesus being God Almighty. So….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
