Quote If I had one child and the child was a boy I could say that he was the first one and the last one. I know that this is a simple way of looking at it. What do you think?Yes, I think the context of that very verse explains what it means, along with other verses that show how Jesus is first and last.

Many disagree with you. And Jesus was definitely without any question a mal·’akh.' In fact, he was undoubtedly God's chief Malakh. No question.Why not discuss this in the other thread/

Quote If I may condense your reply to this questionIs it your understanding that in this verse Paul is speaking of other than Jesus and that “kurios” should be rendered “Jehovah”?Rom 10:13  For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  JOEL 2:30-32““And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and c…[Read more]

Quote The JWs have added Completely wrong, once again, Nick. But you're only off by 400 years or so this time.

Quote I am confused how an intelligent man like you cannot understand this. Nice, you through in more fallacious propaganda thinking at the end.(I don't have time to respond, but will create another thread on this subject.)

Quote If I said: “WJ, you are a true trinitarian.”What do I mean? Do I mean that the other trinitarians (and there are others) are “false trinitarians”?Quote Apples and oranges David. We Know there are more than “one” Trinitarian. But the Bible teaches there is only “One True God”.Hello circle. Have you met WJ.

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, 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…[Read more]

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 scri…[Read more]

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 wit…[Read more]

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 (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?

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.  …[Read more]

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 Bib…[Read more]

I”d like to discuss this in the main thread, here:https://www.heavennet.net/cgi-bin….y160671

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…[Read more]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_TestamentRegarding “Jehovah” in the NT.It states:”During recent decades, though, a number of very ancient manuscrpits have been discovered using some form of the Tetragrammaton into the Greek text. As a matter of fact, the oldest extant copies of the Greek Old Testament include the…[Read more]

Quote Is it your understanding that in this verse Paul is speaking of other than Jesus and that “kurios” should be rendered “Jehovah”?Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” It and Acts are unquestionably a direct quotation from Joel. Would the Bible writers change the quotation? Or did the superstitious Jews…[Read more]

Quote I can only say that I am very excited reading heaven.nets view on the Trinity Doctrine and find that at last, there are people who can see through this very confusing Doctrine.Yes, other than JW's, there are literally dozens of people who don't believe the trinity.

Nick, we can discuss this in the right thread. But I can understand why you don't want to.