Michael the archangel

Originally posted by galveston75
What mistake? It's wrong to ask God for direction on important issues because one see's the flaws in religions today and then be willing to be directed in a correct way by god that may mean letting go of paganistic beliefs that have pulled down christendom as a whole? Sounds like great advice......

The failure is in not seeing the truth of God and substituting your own "truth".

The Bible has words for those who do this in the last days. They are called "false prophets".

Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell are cut from the same mold. Only Joseph Smith did not try to change the Bible to suit his own agenda, instead he created his own testament.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The failure is in not seeing the truth of God and substituting your own "truth".

The Bible has words for those who do this in the last days. They are called "false prophets".

Hard to be told a few facts and truths when it hits home, right?

Anyway still see no one answering my question from yesterday about the power of Michael defeating satan. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Originally posted by Suzianne
You're just being incredibly thick-headed here, as well as semantic.

I SAID that the Greek word for "firstborn", or prototokos has more than one definition. The definition we need concern ourselves with here is that of rank, and not time order. Let's look at it again:

Colossians 1

15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of ...[text shortened]... ose the ENTIRE truth of the Greek, and so, as I said before, I can only assume a willful deceit.

you were not asked for a definition what you were actually asked is why the Bible states that Jesus is of the creation and you say that he is not, you have still not answered the question.

Again the Bible states that Jesus is OF the creation, the first-born OF all creation, why do you say that he is not OF the creation when the Bible says that he is OF the creation?

Originally posted by Suzianne
How is your salvation irrelevant?

That's rather dismissive.


Yeah, see what I did there? Yes, you should recognize it.

unworthy of serious comment.

Originally posted by galveston75
Hard to be told a few facts and truths when it hits home, right?

Anyway still see no one answering my question from yesterday about the power of Michael defeating satan. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I answered that already, if you would care to read it and not blow it off as "irrelevant" because it disagrees with you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I answered that already, if you would care to read it and not blow it off as "irrelevant" because it disagrees with you.

most of your alleged answers simply are irrelevant, you cannot seem to comprehend what it is you are being asked and perhaps that is the reason your attempted answers are irrelevant either that or you are deliberately issuing irrelevant answers to avoid actually answering the questions that are put to you. It has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees with you, again, that is simply an evasion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were not asked for a definition what you were actually asked is why the Bible states that Jesus is of the creation and you say that he is not, you have still not answered the question.

HOW &^%$ING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE, robbie??

I answered your question. One more time, in synopsis, since you obviously do not have even the slightest focus and the attention span of a flea.

Firstborn means ABOVE ALL. Therefore, "firstborn of all creation" means ABOVE ALL CREATION, which obviously means not OF creation. I know reading comprehension is hard, and you're obviously not very skilled at it, so please try again until you get it.

(fingers in ears) "La la la la la la la la, I can't hear you."

This is not only ignorant, but disrespectful. I'm lowering my blood pressure by not speaking to you anymore today.


Okay, I'll throw it up to others here... Did I answer the man's question completely and thoroughly, or not? He's just avoiding the truth. Evasion. Par usual.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I answered that already, if you would care to read it and not blow it off as "irrelevant" because it disagrees with you.

First thing miss is stop being so dang rude. This is not a christian attitude at all and your loosing ground on being respected on anything you say. Understand? No need in this at all........

Now read this if you actually care in learning anything:

In Jewish tradition these seven archangels are Gabriel, Jeremiel, Michael, Raguel, Raphael, Sariel, and Uriel.
On the other hand, Islam believes in four archangels, namely, Jibril, Mikal, Izrail, and Israfil. Catholicism also believes in four archangels: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel.
What does the Bible say? Are there several archangels?

Aside from Michael, no archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor do the Scriptures use the term “archangel” in the plural. The Bible describes Michael as the archangel, implying that he alone bears that designation. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jehovah God has delegated to one, and only one, of his heavenly creatures full authority over all other angels.
Aside from the Creator himself, only one faithful person is spoken of as having angels under subjection—namely, Jesus Christ. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31)
The apostle Paul made specific mention of “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And Peter described the resurrected Jesus by saying: “He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.”—1 Peter 3:22.

Originally posted by Suzianne
HOW &^%$ING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE, robbie??

I answered your question. One more time, in synopsis, since you obviously do not have even the slightest focus and the attention span of a flea.

Firstborn means ABOVE ALL. Therefore, "firstborn of all creation" means ABOVE ALL CREATION, which obviously means not OF creation. I know reading comprehensio ...[text shortened]... question completely and thoroughly, or not? He's just avoiding the truth. Evasion. Par usual.

the scripture does not say above all creation what it say is of creation, there is no above all in the Greek text you simply fabricated it and secondly you were not asked what first-born means, what you were actually asked is why the Bible states that Jesus is of the creation , that is a part of it and you say that he is not.

Again the Bible states that Jesus is OF the creation, the first-born OF all creation, why do you say that he is not OF the creation when the Bible says that he is OF the creation?

you have failed to answer or even understand the question, wheter deliberately i cannot say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
most of your alleged answers simply are irrelevant, you cannot seem to comprehend what it is you are being asked and perhaps that is the reason your attempted answers are irrelevant either that or you are deliberately issuing irrelevant answers to avoid actually answering the questions that are put to you. It has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees with you, again, that is simply an evasion.

STOP LYING!

YOU are the one doing the evading, YOU are the one twisting the truth, YOU are the one refusing to answer questions.

STOP BEING DISRESPECTFUL.

I've answered your questions. If you do not have even the slightest amount of intelligence to perceive them as such, if you are so vain that your opinion is the only "truth" you care about, if you refuse to even acknowledge that someone WITH A BRAIN refuted your positions, then I have no further need to waste my time talking with you today. Good day!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the scripture does not say above all creation what it say is of creation, there is no above all in the Greek text you simply fabricated it and secondly you were not asked what first-born means, what you were actually asked is why the Bible states that Jesus is of the creation , that is a part of it and you say that he is not.

Again the Bible state ...[text shortened]...

you have failed to answer or even understand the question, wheter deliberately i cannot say.

I understood your question the first time. I answered your question the first time. And the second time. And the third time.

The rest (intelligence, understanding, recognizing truth, apologizing) is up to you.*

* Not really expecting apology, but the rest is within your grasp. Maybe not, though. Maybe I overestimate you. Just like you do.

"And I said Good Day, Sir!"

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol.... you really don't care about being truthful with your worship do you? You just want to be right in your own eyes. How sad that it's that important to you to be willing to give up a true relationship with God.

Well, I honor the Son as much as I honor the Father and that includes worship.

"For the Father...has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should *honor the Son just as they honor the Father*. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

(John 5:22-23)

Do You Honor the Son?...Really?

YouTube

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow your ignorance is really showing, can you point to other instances in scripture where the exact same term means an act of worship, for i can demonstrate other instances where it means to bow down, do obeisance, Why when it comes to Jesus does it suddenly transform itself into an act of worship. I don't think you have any idea what you are talkin ...[text shortened]... ynei - knelt before him

why when it comes to Jesus does prosekynei become an act of worship?

To knell before one may not be worship, but it can be.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I honor the Son as much as I honor the Father and that includes worship.

[b]"For the Father...has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should *honor the Son just as they honor the Father*. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

(John 5:22-23)

Do You Honor the Son?...Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX9WUXVD8bg[/b]

Humm? So Jesus said specifically not to worhip him but yet you do, then you add to this scripture where in fact it does not say anything about worshipping the son Jesus. Wow, just keep making it up as you go huh?

Originally posted by galveston75
First thing miss is stop being so dang rude. This is not a christian attitude at all and your loosing ground on being respected on anything you say. Understand? No need in this at all........

Now read this if you actually care in learning anything:

In Jewish tradition these seven archangels are Gabriel, Jeremiel, Michael, Raguel, Raphael, Sariel, ...[text shortened]... is way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.”—1 Peter 3:22.

I gave you my reference. The First Book of Enoch.

What YOU (and robbie) find "reasonable to conclude" (without Biblical reference, by the way) is not what I find "reasonable to conclude".

Archangel is not THE "chief angel", like "Chief of Police", or "Chief of the Boat", or "Chief officer", or even "Commander-in-chief". Archangel is a rank of the angelic hierarchy, more akin to "Chief Master Sergeant", or "Chief petty officer". A rank, not a position, and therefore there is room for seven archangels. And because you assume there is only one "chief" angel, and because one person, Jesus Christ, is spoken of as having the rest "under subjection", you assume they are one and the same. But your entire argument fails because your "given" is completely wrong. No better example can be given as to WHY we should not "assume".

Your argument here suffers from having faulty "givens". You can NOT prove anything based on a false assumption. This is what I have said time and again about the JWs (at least those here we have access to): their arguments are made of half-truths. You start with a false assumption and then rattle off not only your false theory you say is proved by your false assumption, but then an entire litany of TRUE things, that have no actual connection to your original false assumption. False item, followed by true items, thus "appearing" to give credence to your false assumption also being true. But it's not. Even I, as a student who was on the verge of failing every logic course she ever took, can see the fragility of this argument.