- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi David,
Please do not ask us to believe you because of inference.
Please submit the idea to the test you supplied.
Otherwise throw the test out.Quote Hi david,
Are you leading to the conclusion that the only begotten son was not distinct from the angels but one of them?–Nick, page 2.
NICK, This is another false assumption. Does being distinct mean you cannot be described by the same word.
Nick, you are distinct from us in this forum in that you are a moderator. You have special powers. (Some say you can make posts disappear.) But you are a human, just like us.
You seem to think that when people say Jesus was a malwak (messenger/angel) that he was not distinct from all other malwak. He was. He is the “ONLY” begotten son of God (which I just noticed you actually quoted above.) He is distinct in many many ways. But the word malwak doesn't describe a class or form of being Nick, (for both humans and angels are called by that word. Yet, you seem to have the idea that malwak is one form of being and Jesus is one form of being and humans are one form of being.
This is not scriptural. Both humans and spirit creatures are called by malwak (messenger/angel).
But spirits and humans are very different, in many ways.Do you care to respond to this Nick?
Quote (I underlined it for you so you could see it and answer it. I know you won't.) How did I know this? Was it magic? Am I pychic? No. Because to do so would be to show where you stand and what you actually have. You never answer questions. And yet you expect me to do so for you?
Are you greater than I?
Nick, I think we should start this with your strongest argument. If you don't want to start it there and DISCUSS THIS, fine…I have other places to be.
I know you think T8 is wrong. I know you can't answer my questions.
Quote Hi david,
So what of your scriptural system of testing things?What of it? The first point was context. The verse in question (1 thess) –we actually consider what the context says. That is how we arrive at our beliefs–by considering the context and the Bible as a whole.
If we could have a discussion, that would be great, starting with your strongest and only real argument–Jesus is not an angel.
Let's use the Bible.
For the record, here are the points you wanted to consider along with this disucssion:
1. Examine the Immediate Context.
Do not isolate a few words, but consider the verses before and after. What is being discussed?2. Consider the Larger Context.
The Bible Interprets Itself. What do related scriptures say?
We must consider all the scriptures on a given subject and weigh them in order to grasp the true meaning.3. God’s Word never contradicts itself.
So if there is an apparent contradiction, then you are misunderstanding a scripture. If there are a group of scriptures that state one idea clearly, use those to help you understand the scripture in question.4. Start with Clear Scriptures.
Never attempt to establish doctrine by unclear scriptures. Isolating only one scripture that can be understood a number of ways and building a belief around that is dangerous.5. Use More Than One Scripture.
No single scripture can be used to establish doctrine.
Examine verses throughout the Bible that are related.6. Use More Than One Translation.
Understand what other translations say. Look at the margins/footnotes and see how else that verse can be translated. Some Bibles are almost paraphrases of what the text actually says. If one Bible translates a certain verse differently than most, understand why it does so.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=1107. Find Out What the Bible really says.
Many beliefs are common but actually aren’t in the Bible. (Nowhere does it say Adam ate from an “apple” but it simply says “fruit.”) Many people believe things, but can’t scripturally explain why.(I must say, these are not the only things we should follow, and I was hoping others would add to the list.)
Hi David,
So your interpretation of your own system for testing truth DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE FOUND WRITTEN.Any man's inference is good enough and then you can bypass the test altogether. I thought you believed in the bible first?
Nick, you seem completely incompetent in the area of discussion. If one can only ask questions, how far will any discussion go?
Nick, do you want to discuss this? (Since you never answer questions, I'll have to “assume” (as you often do) that you don't want to discuss this.)
Nick, looking at what T8 said, it is obvious that you have some assumptions of your own to work through. Would you like to discuss them? Or perhaps we can just throw accusations at each other.Is that what you'd like to do?
Quote Any man's inference is good enough and then you can bypass the test altogether. I thought you believed in the bible first?
Which one of us wants to discuss the Bible and which one doesnt? hmmm.Nick, the fact that Jesus was a malakh is definitely written. And the fact that he was God's chief/primary/main malakh is also certain. He was God's chief malakh (archmessenger/archangel) without a doubt.
There are other threads where other people argue that Jesus is an malakh and rightly so. But you are not willing to disucss anything or answer anything. Unreasonable is a word that comes to mind. What am I to think about my belief when you cannot answer simple questions about yours. If you do not believe the Bible when it declares Jesus an angel ( and you don't even want to discuss it)
[[See last 15 posts as proof of this. Have you read a single one of my posts?]] I have no reason to believe you did.I think perhaps I should do like you–completely ignore your posts, stop answering your questions, not use the Bible and just keep saying what I think is right. Then, we'd both be on a level playing field. Is that what you are trying to do–get me to be as you? Then you could point at me and say–look, you have nothing. Unfortunately, I don't work that way. Please stop speaking if you have no desire to discuss what the Bible says.
david
Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,04:22) Nick, I'd rather discuss this here, in the main thread. 3 others have been started all exactly the same. I prefer to have one large thread than several little threads all discussing the same thing. I though we could start with T8's point above. Is T8 wrong?
So, we have a better idea what he is saying, let's look at the full context:
“We know that Jesus is not and angel because we are told just that in Hebrews.”–Kerwin.
T8 responds:
“Actually that is an assumption on your part.First off, it says to which of the angels, and then points to the son. This can equally be read as him not being an angel and being an angel too. Try reading it with the understanding that he is an angel and it also makes sense.
Secondly scripture calls Jesus an angel.
Malachi 3:1
“See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.Almost without exception this passage has been interpreted to refer to two messengers – John the Baptist as the first messenger (or angel) “preparing the way” and the Lord Jesus Christ as the second “messenger (or angel) of the covenant”. It is also quoted in Matt.11:10.
NOTE: The word for angel (messenger) in the OT is mal'ak {mal-awk'} – hence Malachi.
Matthew 11:10-15,
“This is he, of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You'.John 13:16
I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.The reality here is that the word 'angel' means 'messenger' and Jesus and John were both messengers. Messengers can be men, cherub, seraph, or whatever God chooses. More often than not, translators use the word “angel” when it is a being from heaven, and messenger when it is a “man” – hence why we usually think that all angels are always beings from heaven.”
Then, in his next post, he says:
“Hi Nick.The word angel in the OT is {mal-awk}. This word is applied to men and heavenly beings. That is my point. So in the usage of that word, Jesus is indeed an angel {mal-awk}.
I have never taught that Jesus is a cherub or seraph, so in reference to them being called messengers, I am not lumping Jesus in that group.”
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….3;st=10I thought we could begin with this thought as it is the only apparent “contradiction” of believing Michael is another name for Jesus. As T8 points out, it is based on an “assumption.”
Is T8 wrong Nick?
(I underlined it for you so you could see it and answer it. I know you won't.)david
No response from Nick.Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,04:36) mal·’akh′ (Hb. messenger/angel)
ag′ge·los (Gk. messenger/angel)If Jesus is a malakh, would he not be God's chief malakh–his “arch” (chief) malakh?
Jesus was “sent forth” by God to deliver God's words, not his own. (The Bible says this in many places.)
Jesus is therefore a “malakh” and not only that, he would seem to be God's arch malakh.The Bible never mentions arch malakh in plural. You have to go outside of the Bible to find such references. Since arch malakh means “chief/main/principle” malakh, it makes sense there would only be one chief malakh. (And the Bible never mentions it in plural.)
Even without going into the scriptures I want to go into, strickly from what the words actually mean, Jesus is without question God's arch malakh (archmessenger/archangel.)
No response from Nick. And note in the last post, I predicted he would not respond to that post.Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,04:59) Quote Hi david,
Are you leading to the conclusion that the only begotten son was not distinct from the angels but one of them?–Nick, page 2.
NICK, This is another false assumption. Does being distinct mean you cannot be described by the same word.
Nick, you are distinct from us in this forum in that you are a moderator. You have special powers. (Some say you can make posts disappear.) But you are a human, just like us.
You seem to think that when people say Jesus was a malwak (messenger/angel) that he was not distinct from all other malwak. He was. He is the “ONLY” begotten son of God (which I just noticed you actually quoted above.) He is distinct in many many ways. But the word malwak doesn't describe a class or form of being Nick, (for both humans and angels are called by that word. Yet, you seem to have the idea that malwak is one form of being and Jesus is one form of being and humans are one form of being.
This is not scriptural. Both humans and spirit creatures are called by malwak (messenger/angel).
But spirits and humans are very different, in many ways.Do you care to respond to this Nick?
Again, no response from Nick. I even asked him if he cared to respond. I guess he can't respond.Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,05:01) Nick, I think we should start this with your strongest argument. If you don't want to start it there and DISCUSS THIS, fine…I have other places to be. I know you think T8 is wrong. I know you can't answer my questions.
Again, no response and Nick did not want do consider what is his main argument–that Jesus cannot be called a malakh (angel/messenger).Quote (david @ Feb. 16 2009,05:13) Nick, you seem completely incompetent in the area of discussion. If one can only ask questions, how far will any discussion go? Nick, do you want to discuss this? (Since you never answer questions, I'll have to “assume” (as you often do) that you don't want to discuss this.)
Nick, looking at what T8 said, it is obvious that you have some assumptions of your own to work through. Would you like to discuss them? Or perhaps we can just throw accusations at each other.Is that what you'd like to do?
Again, no comment on anything I said. Am I wrong in this post to think Nick doesn't want to discuss this, or that he is incablable?I have to wonder:
If Nick is never going to respond to anything I say, why would I care to say anything to him?
I don't think Nick wants to discuss this.
Hi david,
You say
“Nick, the fact that Jesus was a malakh is definitely written. And the fact that he was God's chief/primary/main malakh is also certain. He was God's chief malakh (archmessenger/archangel) without a doubt.”Please show evidence with verses and find supporting scriptures to confirm as you taught us to do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
