@ plappville

No sir, i rest/withdrew my opinion sir.

Peace.

you are funny, im enjoying your work on other threads too, it seems that some people cant sustain this tread, im not reffering to boomark, but others, what do you observe?

OmoPastor:

you talk with no understanding of what you say.

pls educate us!

do you think God is a fool? if God has not called you to be a Pastor; a leader of His kids, but you decided to call yourself, then you are in hot soup.

are you the one cooking that soup? how can you for example know,or countered if im lying that i was called by God? is it by doing anything i like and since nobody is questioning me,i can choose to say its God?

first,anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual have to follow GODS laid down standard of orderliness, lets see an example;

1 cor 14:37

37, If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

now let us see some clear instructions of the Lord that these overseers deliberately broke of which we are sure that they have erred blatantly!.

34[b] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak[/b]; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 timothy 2:11-12

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And [size=14pt]I do not permit a woman to teach [/size]or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence

below are few names of those who did not follow above bible instructions;

Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor and pastor mrs Helen Oritsejafor

Pastor Adeboye and pastor Mrs Folu Adeboye

Pastor David oyedepo and pastor Mrs Faith Oyedepo

Pastor Chris and pastor mrs anita Oyakhilome

when the husband is getting a so called 'call' the wife automatically get a call too!

and the overseer's wife in second in command superior than other male pastors in order.

thats why when the overseer dies, the holy spirit will not see anyone to lead the church and manage the wealth other than the wife,who is already elevated through disobeying Gods instructions in (1 cor 14 above)

example is when Bishop idahosa died, who took over the church and the investments? Pastor (Mrs) Margaret Idahosa!

so,who is fooling who? a stage managed business pyramid built for a family? or following Gods requirements for choosing overseers? i will discuss that.

As a man called by God, your life has been totally bought over by God and you no longer have authority over what you do, where you go or even what you say.

you will see that they refused to follow Gods instructions but bent on amasing wealth securing it in their family's name!

Many claimed to be bishops,pastors or Deacons without the due course,and followers too choose to remain ignorance by blindly following these self acclaimed men of God.Many do not even know that there are laid down rules and criteria that 'older men' of the church' must prayerfully consider before choosing someone as Bishops,Daecons, Gen.Overseers or Pastor.

But rather, an individual who claimed that he receives a call, will impose himself to be a bishop/General overseer and Automatically also impose the wife as 'a senior pastor' and she ranked superior over the men pastors in hierachy rank,and she automatically doubled with the power of 'a co signatory' to all the churches funds and bank accounts.

but then does it follow the command below?;

1 Timothy 3 :1-13;
New King James Version (NKJV)
Qualifications of Overseers

3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7[size=14pt] Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside[/size], lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Qualifications of Deacons

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 [size=18pt]But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.[/size] 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Get me right pls, women have a role to play in Gods arrangement,

titus 2:3-5

the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

@plappvile

Honestly, i do not think @boomark need all these to in order to accept plain scriptures.
He has some argument skills, when He do not want to agree to plain scripture, He will then provoke arguement as usual

are you holding a brief on boomark's behalf?, let him answer,im interested in his response! i think he is more reasonable in his contributions, and very easy to work with.

Onliie: and is it a crime for a Pastor to make money from the church? Will money fall from heaven for him to spend?

yes,it is a crime,yes that when you have the poor with needs in your churches,yet pastors ignore them to satisfy their long throat,bastardising the ministry as if it was meant for investment,

lets see how the poor were treated by the apostles with donations from early churches;

Acts 2:44

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.

45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:34

34 [size=16pt]that there were no needy persons among them[/size]. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

These people joined the ministry when there was no money in it. He his a graduate for that matter. He subjected himself to poverty just to do the work of God.

see how you just bought these lies wholesale! na wa for you oo, you can believe anything walahi!

Now that he is enjoying you complain. Besides he didn't say the church has nothing to do with his money. Don't get it wrong.

you are lying on his behalf, he lied that his investments were not from tithe money, when he refused to tell us what he does outside the church business, now ask yourself, is h greater than jesus? then why must he also lied that he receives/or bebate his last salary the last time in 1987 when we all knew that salary is nothing to him, who is deceiving who?

@ubenedictus and
@Boomark(pls ignore the part that concerns ube and trinity i knew you are not one)

d wiki d quote said one plays two parts of a stage usually when one asks and answers himself! This isnt the case in heb 1, paul doesnt ask and answers his question, he isnt playing two parts of a stage.

firstly, i dont expect you to see the answer expecially when you are determined to reason from the trinitarian angle! and that has led you into this mistake of using a wrong gramatical example (erotema) in describing my own figure of reasoning (anthypophora)below

Just d way "can't u do good?" implys d subject fails in doing good so does "to which of the angels has God ever said "..."? Imply that he has never said it to anyone!

i will advice that You need to understand what 'rhetorical questions' inludes and all the different usages,
"can't u do good?" or ''why are you so stupid''? are examples of [erotema];'The technical term for rhetorical questions in general' and the aim is to ''affirm or deny a point strongly by asking it as a question''. no one is disputing that! im not making a case for [erotema]



we have other kinds of rhetorical questions, in which one asks the opinion of those listening, called [anacoenosis]. and many more......!

rather,

the one im reffering to,as quoted in the wiki, thus ''especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage'' is known as ; [anthypophora]

Anthypophora is a figure of reasoning in which one asks and then immediately answers one's own questions (or raises and then settles imaginary objections). Reasoning aloud.

Anthypophora sometimes takes the form of asking the audience or one's adversary what can be said on a matter, and thus can involve both anacoenosis and apostrophe.

rhetorical uses, the question as a grammatical form has important rhetorical dimensions;
examples are;

# Is the Republican party the best? I think not. Why else were they beaten? Because they are no longer in touch with the people.

# Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman--I am a better one..." II Cor. 11:22-23.

so also,[size=14pt] verse 4 and 5 of hebrews 1, were to be read altogether [/i]this way [/size](see the bridge between vs4 and 5 in the first word in vs5 [size=16pt]'for'[/size])the answer is contained in verse 4, fortunately provided by the same writer;

hebrews 1:4-5;

4, Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5, [size=16pt]For[/size] unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

[size=14pt][i]''To which of the angels did He say: "You are my son...."?[/size] is criminally seperated from a context,thereby rendering it impotent.

the point here is that the answer is within the context and the writer presents it in a technical way, hence the argument!

Anthypophora uses the principle of rhetorical questions to ask questions which the speaker wishes to answer. as you see above.
Boomark

Your big barristerish english will not confuse me.

im dying with laughter here what is 'barristerish english' ? anyway i have said earlier, you dont need to agree, but we are to test every spirit, and that is what we are doing.thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Quotes

"The effectiveness of rhetorical questions in argument comes from their dramatic quality. They suggest dialogue, especially when the speaker both asks and answers them himself, as if he were playing two parts on the stage. They are not always impassioned; they may be mildly ironical or merely argumentative: but they are always to some extent dramatic, and, if used to excess, they tend to give one’s style a theatrical air."

based on the above, ''playing two parts on the stage'' ''suggesting dialogue'' the rhetorical questio in Hebrews 1:5,14 in our argument comes from their ''dramatic quality'' how? jesus became better in a dramatic way! he was made a man (less than the angel) then he obtain the name that fired him over every creation 'jesus christ'
so the rhetoric drama in this case rest on verse 4 of heb 1;

Hebrews 1:4
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they

can you see that this rhetoric question is of dramatic use? you may find it hard to accept because of your mind's positioning, but thats no problem, it would be superflous if after reffering to jesus as an 'angel of covenant' in malachi 3:1 then the question 'to which of the angels did he ever say' is not ''impassioned'' but rather ''playing two parts on the stage'' and the other stage part is within the context; hebrew 1:4.


thanks for pointing this out!

@Boomark

v3 ending and v4 happened when he ascended to heaven.

v5 is a question asked after he has been begotten. To which of the angels did He ever say "You are my son...?" will your answer be angel Michael? It is obvious God did not say that to an angel.

are you saying that To which of the angels did He ever say "You are my son...?"

is an affirmation? my brother it is an open sentence! and that goes for 'the unique first spirit creature and angel/messenger jesus christ' unique in the sense that there cannot be 2 of such angel/messenger before he obtained the superior name, who obtained/inherit a superior name that elevates him above others! ok? can we debate that?

see Ray foucher comment on that, he is not a JW

[size=14pt]"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."[/size] (1Pet 3:22)
[size=16pt]Angels are subject to Jesus not to another angel. Calling Jesus by the name "Michael the archangel" is not degrading as some think. It no more makes Him an ordinary angel than calling him the "Lamb of God" makes Him an animal. He is not "an" angel, rather He is "the head of" the angels.[/size] Compare:

"For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." Psalms 91:11

[size=14pt]"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?[/size] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb 1:13-14)

@True2God

so if you have problem with the jws,go and trash it out with them,im not aware of any changes in their teaching,i do not depend on their teaching alone to arive at my conclusion,i depend on independent reseach on my own!

so stop behaving like Agbero omo ita,ti o mo nkan to nse!

@True2God

you keep accusing the jws because they are exposing all your hideouts bare! but if you want to know numerous other people who are not jws but have good points on micheal the arch angel as jesus, see the link below, im only posting these to expose the fact that you have ran out of gas, nothing in you to offer,

I DONT LIKE TO PASTE ANOTHER ONE'S WORK HERE,BUT TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE AND ALSO EXONERATE THE JEHOVAHS WITNESSES,

see these write up below from a non JW;

http://www.jesus-resurrection.info/michael-archangel.html Ray Foucher

Michael the Archangel
(Part 4 of 4)

Who is Michael the archangel? The being referred to as Michael is mentioned by that name five times in the Bible: Dan 10:13, 10:21, 12:1, Jude 9 and Rev 12:7.

This is part 4 of a study to answer the question: "Who is Michael the Archangel?" For background, we have looked at a few related topics and have established that:

angels are messengers and not always what we regard as angelic beings - Part 1 - What are Angels?
there is only one archangel and he goes by the name of Michael - Part 2 - What are Archangels?
angels are His (Jesus') angels; He is the head of them - Part 3 - Jesus and Angels
The name Michael, in Hebrew, has the meaning of "who is like God?" It is both a question and a challenge. Satan's rebellion is essentially an attempt to install himself on the throne of God and "be like the most high"

"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa 14:14)
Thus, the name Michael is most fitting for Him who has taken on the task of disproving Satan's charges, and vindicating the character of God and his right to the throne. In each of the five uses of Michael (only one of which uses the phrase "Michael the archangel", notice how the scene involves Christ in conflict with Satan. Let's look at each one.

First Use of Michael

"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia." (Dan 10:13)
The "me" of this verse is likely the angel Gabriel - who is never referred to as an archangel. He had appeared to Daniel previously to explain things to him (Dan 8:16-17, 9:21-22). It cannot be Michael because Michael is spoken of by Gabriel as another individual.

"The prince of the kingdom of Persia" was Satan directing the literal kings of Persia. A literal king would not be able to withstand the angel Gabriel for twenty days, only a being of the same order could. Before his fall, Satan was a covering cherub (Eze 28:14) close in position to God. He led a rebellion among the angels against God and was influential enough to draw one third of them to his side (Rev 12:4, 7-9).

Regarding the phrase "One of the chief princes," the KJV marginal note says "or the first."

"Michael ... came to help me." Only someone more powerful than Gabriel or Satan could resolve this situation. It was not any angel that came but Michael the archangel, the head of the angels. The phrase "and I remained" is translated by the NIV as "because I was detained." Michael had to come to Gabriel's aid.

All three Old Testament references to Michael refer to him by using the word prince(s):

"Michael, one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13)
"Michael your prince" (Dan 10:21)
"Michael ... the great prince" (Dan 12:1)
The marginal note for "one of" in Dan 10:13 is "Or, the first." So He is not one of a number of equals the thought of which disturbs some people.

Is Christ referred to elsewhere using the term prince? In vision, Daniel refers to the prince of the host (Dan 8:11). What is the host that he is the prince of? The word host is used in a number of ways, often meaning simply a great multitude. It is sometimes used in reference to angels:

"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying," (Luke 2:13). It would appear that the host of which Michael is the prince are the angels.
Being Michael the archangel or head of the angels is equivalant to being the prince of the host of the angels.

Joshua 5:13-15 mentions a being who refers to himself as "captain of the host of the Lord." The margin says "prince" (v14). "Joshua fell on his face ... and did worship." Only God can rightly receive worship (v15). "And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy..." Moses was told the same thing when he appeared before the Lord in the burning bush (Ex 3:5, Acts 7:33). Note who was speaking to him:

"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. (Exo 3:2)
In Gabriel's explanation of the vision he refers to this same being as the "Prince of princes" (Dan 8:25). Prince of princes is a reference to deity and is similar to:

Lord of lords: Ps 136:3, Deut 10:17, 1Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14, 19:16
God of gods: Ps 136:2, Deut 10:17
King of kings: 1Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14, 19:16
These verses include unquestionable references to Jesus. He is referred to as a prince in other ways in the New Testament:

"And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." (Acts 3:15)
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31)

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," (Rev 1:5)
Second Use of Michael

"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth exerts himself with me in these things, but Michael your prince." (Dan 10:21)
Gabriel is still speaking and referring to Michael as another being. "These things" refers to v20 "...and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia..." Again, a conflict with Satan is being described.

Third Use of Michael

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." (Dan 12:1)
It is Christ who stands for us, who offers to stand in our place in the judgment. The phrase "written in the book" connects this with the judgment. "Thy people shall be delivered" is referring to God's people being delivered from the powers of darkness in a time of great conflict, a "time of trouble such as never was."

Fourth Use of Michael

This is the only Biblical reference to use the exact term "Michael the archangel:"

"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." (Jude 1:9)
Again, there is a conflict between Christ and Satan, this time over the body of Moses who was buried by God Himself (Deut 34:5-6). We know that Christ was successful in raising Moses from the dead because Moses later appeared at the transfiguration (Matt 17:3). Some have argued that since Michael the archangel said "The Lord rebuke thee" he was calling on the Lord to do the rebuking and therefore could not be the Lord himself. However, Zech 3:2 shows that this is not necessarily so as the speaker here, obviously the Lord, says the same thing:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee... " (Zech 3:2)
The confusion can be cleared up when we allow the Bible to defin its own terms. Who would contend with Satan for the body of Moses but Jesus? No angel has the power to raise him from the dead.

Fifth Use of Michael

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels," (Rev 12:7)
This verse says that the angels are Michael's angels. He is obviously in charge of them in some way and could even be understood to have ownership of them. Peter, talking of Jesus, says:

"Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (1Pet 3:22)
Angels are subject to Jesus not to another angel. Calling Jesus by the name "Michael the archangel" is not degrading as some think. It no more makes Him an ordinary angel than calling him the "Lamb of God" makes Him an animal. He is not "an" angel, rather He is "the head of" the angels. Compare:

"For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways." Psalms 91:11

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb 1:13-14)

@ubenedictus

clearly you were told by a catholic like you(ihedinobi) that Trinity is undefended in the bible, you agreed thanked him,but here,we are defending every thing here with the bible,

see the discussion that you actually agreed that trinity was undefended in the bible;
https://www.nairaland.com/870257/worship-one-true-god-not/12

IHEDINOBI=UBENEDICTUS;..[size=16pt]I'm actually bothering because of you, Ubenedictus.[/size] It is no small matter to soil sacred things and continuing in this debate amounts to that. Is Jesus Christ God? Of course He is. What is the biggest argument for it? We are saved and children of God. If there is any other thing that is the Gospel, I do not recognize it and neither does the Bible.
[size=16pt]I made a clear write-up stating what the Trinity is and why it is true and undefended in the Bible[/size]. The answers from those of your company to that write-up were very unworthy of people who claim superior knowledge. I'm sorry that I will not post the link here because I'm done with all that foolishness. Anyway, nobody bothered to dissect my write-up and pick it apart logically. All I got was derision and cheap attacks.

UBENEDICTUS(response); no need to bother, im out.

is it not very clear now that you and true2God wants us to return to the stone age? and continue with pagan practices? at least, 4 bibles outside the NWT actually rendered jesus an angel,the bible demand for three witnesses for a proof to be legitimate, now we have 4!

Ubenedictus

Hehehe, so palp na woman and e dey ask wether anoda person na woman

can you see that you are not contributing anything to the tread? and moreso, have you forgotten what your mother told you? of course you told us, on this tread
https://www.nairaland.com/870257/worship-one-true-god-not/12

Ubenedictus to ihedinobi;...another good point, u are begining to sound more and more like my mum, i do remember her warning me never to argue a point of doctrine,

now are you loyal to your mum?

@True2God;

true2God;..Who told u i dnt believe in the unity of the godhead, the father, the son and the holy spirit as one?

if you believe these above, why do you still need these below?

I worship (the father and the son) and pray to God through the son Jesus.

open a thread now on the above,if you are sure of yourself, and let us see who will run away or look for excuse to evade responses!

you can see that even on your own tread, we are more effective, and you guys are lost in your own Trinity tread, see these read from page 1-12;
https://www.nairaland.com/870257/worship-one-true-god-not/12

@Boomark,

You are right. But certainly not angel Michael's voice. The bible didn't say that.

are you still trying to deny this:

1 thess 4:16....''1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
King James Version (KJV)
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel''

Boomark;....[/b]The angel of the covenant(Jesus)[size=14pt] did not come as flaming fire[/size] angel but as a MAN.

are you denying this glarring proof below?

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8

7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the[b] Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in [size=18pt]flaming fire[/size] taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Boomark; That is why i said it should be in uniformity with the angel(john) that came to clear the way.

Your your quotes in Rev supports the my uniformity theorem. That is angels here=human messengers.

Our own view/standard or Gods direction/standard view, which one should we heed?

Now you agreed to use angel for john and jesus after all? im i right? well!

But you have been accusing me of Cherry/Orange pick until you saw as many as possible humans reffered to as 'angel' in revelation above. anyway,its not about winning an argument but the truth need to be told. ithink without prejudice,i can say that you are honest with what you saw, at least judging with the last post.

had it been that you have agreed to the angel defination itself it should not have taken you this far to accept the concept of an angel(spirit/human),[see this link on WIKIPEDIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel] see the comment about Malachi there.

@Boomark

you are yet to reply my last posts directed at you

1, About why jesus will come 'in flame of fire with the angels' thereby appearing in the form of angels
(according to your defination of the look of angels as 'in flames of fire appearance'psalm 104:4)read it, for details.

2,why uniformity between human and spirit creatures is not a criteria before 'a human church/assenbly/congregation leader' can be refered to or called 'angel'.examples of human reffered to as angels 'in your own bible were shown' as proofs.

go back to thereal post for details .

thanks

@Boomark

Boomark
[size=14pt]Jesus and John were called angels. Some used messengers for both of them. In what sense were both of them called angels?[/size] As spirits and ministers of flaming fire(how God made his angels, Ps 104:4) [size=14pt]or did they just translate messenger to angel[/size]

. The two will have to be uniform since they were both called messengers in some translations.

in your post above you are making a case for uniformity in form first between john and jesus, before your own defination which is that 'john must be a spirit creature rather than humans before being eligible to trully appeal to you as or reffered to as 'angel' hence; you said;
[size=14pt] The two will have to be uniform since they were both called messengers in some translations.[/size]

Boomark
With reference to 1, what of angel john the Baptist? Is he an angel from heaven who did not know/recognise angel Jesus when they were in heaven?(because he was not sure if Jesus is the messiah) Or don't you think these translations choose to translate "messenger" as "angels"?

[size=16pt]uniformity 'in form' (first) between john and jesus, is it required as a basis for who is deemed fit to be reffered to as 'angel'?[/size]

i have treated this issue before but, let me shed more light this time,right inside your own bible,i think i have seen you quoting from king james version.

will you be surprised again or accept the truth if you actually found out that king james version and almost all bibles agreed to call 'human' angels? precisely leaders delegated to lead the early congregation/churches/assemblies of God people?

now lets find out,Revelation 2:1,3:1,3:14 and 2:8 among many reffered to as angels;

2:1 The [size=16pt]angel of the church Ephesus[/size].

3:1 [size=14pt]The angel of the church of Sardis[/size] …………..is reproved verse(3)

3:14 [size=14pt]the angel of Laodicea[/size] …..rebuked for being neither hot nor cold,
2:8 [size=14pt]The angel of the church of Smyrna[/size].

using the ''bible cc'' http://bible.cc/revelation/2-1.htm that you(boomark) directed me to use,
i found explanations on revelation 2:1 about who 'the angel of the church of ephesus' was

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Unto the angel of the Church of Ephesus - By αγγελος, angel, we are to understand the messenger or person sent by God to preside over this Church; and to him the epistle is directed, not as pointing out his state, but the state of the Church under his care. Angel of the Church here answers exactly to that officer of the synagogue among the Jews called שליח ציבור sheliach tsibbur, the messenger of the Church, whose business it was to read, pray, and teach in the synagogue. The Church at Ephesus is first addressed, as being the place where John chiefly resided; and the city itself was the metropolis of that part of Asia. The angel or bishop at this time was most probably Timothy, who presided over that Church before St. John took up his residence there, and who is supposed to have continued in that office till a.d. 97, and to have been martyred a short time before St. John's return from Patmos.

note that you are the one that recommends this bible site to me first, i have been very carefull not to cite works from other site!

@true2God

Scroll back and read my analysis of malachi 3:1 u will see my stands on it. One messenger was to prepare the way for another messanger. One messanger comes with the spirit of Elijah (John the baptist) and the other messanger comes as a messiah (Jesus christ), filles with holy spirit. [size=16pt]So non of the two is an angel. [/size]Dont believe lies and dnt propagate lies.

bolded above in your comment,

i hope you will not throw away your bible when you saw humans reffered to as an angel
check these in yours but be softly ooo;

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus[/b] write; These things says he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands;

King James Version
[b]To the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things said he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the middle of the seven golden candlesticks;

American Standard Version
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks:

Douay-Rheims Bible
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write: These things saith he, who holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks:

Darby Bible Translation
To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write: These things says he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps:

Young's Literal Translation
[b]'To the messenger of the Ephesian assembly [/b]write: These things saith he who is holding the seven stars in his right hand, who is walking in the midst of the seven lamp-stands -- the golden:

can you tell us who the angel was? expecially the on in care of sardis and laodicea, in relation to the members of the church allowing them of some grossmisconduct, and was reproved.

@BOOMARK, is uniformity first an issue in rendering these leaders angel in your own bible? respond pls, we may be going to page 100 on this tread, and will sustain the truth because the scheme is not that of man, in piecemeal truth will be coming out here.

@Boomark
@Frosbel;

below (in bold) is an agreed defination or the 'form' that an angels looks like or were identified(according to you as revealed below);

Boomark;=..Is john and Jesus referred to as angels according to how God made his angels in Ps 104:4 (spirits and ministers of flaming fire) or as messengers.

Boomark
Jesus and John were called angels. Some used messengers for both of them.[size=14pt] In what sense were both of them called angels? As spirits and ministers of flaming fire(how God made his angels, Ps 104:4)[/size] or did they just translate messenger to angel. The two will have to be uniform since they were both called messengers in some translations.

Frosbel;...

Wrong.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Who makes his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: - Psalm 104:4

A messenger can either be an angel or a MAN.
A man is never called an angel or vice versa.

Angels are extraterrestrial beings !

something very common to your definations above is ''a flaming fire'' as the real appearance of the angels (according to you, it is only the angels that posses that look,and that defines them as angels).

But, have you ever wondered why jesus will appear in that same form,''flaming fire'',(a)with his mighty angels (b) sharing that same angelic appearance [size=18pt]''flaming fire''[/size] according to your own defination? read

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8

7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when[size=18pt] the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven[/size] with His mighty angels, 8 [size=18pt]in flaming fire [/size]taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

can we say that you have blasphemed jesus with your defination of 'angels appearance as flaming fire'?an appearance exclusively designed for [size=14pt]''only''[/size] angels?

(this is another evidence of jesus as the archangel, apart from 'the archangels voice' that will be heard by the dead and rise which the authority of the 'voice' to be used is that of jesus,(boomark) dont you see conflict here?)

@ Boomark

Mt 24:31
King James Bible

And he shall send his
angels with a great sound
of a trumpet, and they
shall gather together his
elect from the four winds,
from one end of heaven
to the other.

bolded above are weak proofs that cannot stand any of the next below, [size=18pt]''sound
of a trumpet'' is not the voice that the dead would hear and rise[/size]

john 5:25-29;

25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when [size=18pt]the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God[/size]; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear [size=18pt]His voice [/size]

see me see trouble o!

one named guy known as true2God accused me barristers of being brainwashed by watchtower(his opinion), and you would think that he had already concluded that im a JW,but below

true2God;to BARRISTERS ....This wat an organization had turn u guys into.

but turned around to my defence again below;

[b]true2God;to fresky...........Since he doesnt buy to ur falshood u cant understand him nau. If he had bought to ur fallacy u would hav been jumping and somersaulting and celebrating ur 'success'. Do u need anyman to validate ur point or the bible?

Confusion break bones CBB. Fela............

@Boomark

With [size=18pt]the voice of "the" arch angel: this shows that the arch angel will at that time stand and do his work of which at that time [/size]is to protect those that will be gathered from the earth. He will protect them from satan's. Satan would not want the elect to be gathered.

bolded above, you clearly denied[size=18pt] forcefully[/size] 'the voice' of the archangel which jesus possesed! you rendered his 'voice' impotent and invalid in your opinion. thats clear heresy! the passage is clear!

Mt 24:31
King James Bible

And he shall send his
angels with[i] a great sound
of a trumpet[/i], and they
shall gather together his
elect from the four winds,
from one end of heaven
to the other.

this bible verse does not give any credence to your case, it lacked substance,and unfortunately sound of trumpet is not 'the voice' note pls

note pls

(a)1 thess 4:16....''jesus will come with the archangels voice''

(b) john 5 25-29 ''the dead will hear the 'voice' of the son of God.

jesus was not referred to as coming 'along with the arch-angel' but 'with the voice of archangel' instead of arch angel as the focus here it was the voice, so jesus possesed that voice of archangel. note that fact.

@Boomark

May be we have to wait until they explain why the called john the Baptist and Jesus angels at the same time. There are so many messengers across the bible. We will have to bring them up and call them angels too.

Until then you are not suppose to chose one that favoured you when you have failed to explain the other.

just tell me that you are shocked to the brim when you saw jesus beign reffered to as an angel,

remember that when i fisrt qupted malachi 3;1 you denied seing angel there and could boast that no bible translation could use angel, but when you saw the last two translations, that rendered jesus as angel,havent i answerd your question? you switch to me to explain why a particular bible was written? anyway jesus was reffered to as an angel,mal 3:1. pls belly the shock, i can understand,ehn!

@Boomark

Boomark:

(a) 1 Thess 4:16 - "For the Lord
himself will come down from
heaven, with a loud command,
with the voice of the archangel
and with the trumpet call of
God, and the dead in Christ will
rise first".

This shows Christ will resurrect
the dead, with ArchAngel's
voice.

So his loud command/shout cannot raise the dead? the trumpet of God also means nothing? Only the arch angels voice that suit what you want will raise the dead.

Please be sincere.

you are the least of person that i ever thought will reason like a babe above, even when faced with fact! if you have problem with jws it should not affect your judgement,you reason along sentiment rather than facts,

loud command/shout cannot raise the dead? the trumpet of God also means nothing?

no, all these above were not eligible according to the bible but only 'the voice'

John 5:25-29
New King James Version (NKJV)
25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear [size=18pt]the voice [/size]of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which [size=14pt]all who are in the graves will hear His voice [/size]

[size=18pt]only 'the voice' [/size]is mentioned here twice, [size=14pt]not loud command/shout or the trumpet[/size]!

be sincere if you truly knew sincerity! you seemed like a silent snake, if not in your own quote earlier in ''bible cc'' about daniel 10:13, you claimed that you use NWT while it wasnt even among the 15 translations, that is mischevious brother.stop that.

true2God

This is the issue i hav with some of u guys. U r here apologizin to me for callin me a cathlic and yet u r not sure if i am a catholic or not. Whether u hav met me somewhere on dis forum, even after tellin u i am not a cathlic yet u r not sure. Na wa 4 u ooo.

there is no apology in ijawkids reply to your post,assuming cheap popularity where you dont deserve is stealing! ole oloju-rogodo!

see your frustration below, not even one bible quote!

So ur argument has turn to voice. This is a straw man's argument dat holds no water biblically. All in a desperate attemp at propagatin ur 'new light' frm watchtower org, not frm the bible.

My quextion now to u is this, does watchtower ,or u, believe dat christ will come with 'the voice' of the arch angel and the dead in christ shall rise first, den the believers alive will meet the Lord in the air accordin to dat verse u've just quoted. I mean both of us only should exchange messages base on dis verse u listed up the 'voice of an arch angel' as ur meaning the voice of the son.

true2God

This is the issue i hav with some of u guys. U r here apologizin to me for callin me a cathlic and yet u r not sure if i am a catholic or not. Whether u hav met me somewhere on dis forum, even after tellin u i am not a cathlic yet u r not sure. Na wa 4 u ooo.

there is no apology in ijawkids reply to your post,assuming cheap popularity where you dont deserve is stealing! ole oloju-rogodo!

welldone guys! what do you expect? they are defeated in their own game! malachi 3:1 translated jesus as an angel, not in NWT but other translations has really caused confusion among them, they got nothing to offer! hear the one that called himself true2God in an effort to derail the tread was accusing JWS for nothing sake instead of facing facts, olodo-adagba-madanu!

truthislight:

what are you not telling me?

"Worship" in legal term and worship in religious term is it the same?

In religious terms(christianity) who determines worship? Pope? No

God does, who then is the pope to determine who should be worship?

How Yahweh will be happy with him for his Redirection of worship to the "seven"

common, why wasting your precious time with 'a kindergarten pupil' who does not know his left from right and even moreso continue to remain adamant in ignorance is insanity! common move on pls,dont give what is holy to the p.i.g.s.... just watch,he will reply with insult now,and that is what they are here to do.

@Boomark

##Douay-Rheims Bible
Behold I send my angel, and he
shall prepare
the way before my face. And
presently the
Lord, whom you seek, and the
angel of the
testament, whom you desire,
shall come to his
temple. Behold he cometh,
saith the Lord of
hosts.

Can you explain why john was called an angel?

you know that had it been that it was NWT new world translation that renders it angel,you would have accused the JWS.

but your question is answered, did the bible refer to jesus as angel ?, yes! malachi 3:1

Boomark:

We all know who angels are. So i want to know if john the Baptist is an angel, is he?

boomark can u help me to remove 'we' above, because, if you are in agreement with what many of us has been shouting out here ever since of which you will breeze through but still come back to square one asking the same question again again as is one is not having other things to do,

if you really know what an angel is, you dont need to ask the following again;

Boomark;..Can you explain why john was called an angel?

firstly,

Douay-Rheims Bible 1899, is one of the oldest translations, i wasnt born when this translatn was made, and i think 'they'(Douay-Rheims Bible) are in the best position to answer that! you can direct the answer to them.

moreover, what of the other translations? Darby Bible Translation, also rendered jesus 'angel'

Secondly,

you can open another tread on angels, then i will contribute,we are getting more focused and will not continue to go in circles to satisfy an already made-up mind,

you guys will not respond but continue to accuse JWS that they are the ones behing jesus being rendered angel,but [size=14pt]are Jehovahs Witnesses responsible for Darby Bible Translation,or Douay-Rheims Bible 1899? both bibles are not jws! and this further exonerates JWS [/size]

you can read my write up on angels (scroll back), the greek meanings and how they are first spirit beings before beign delegated.

we cant change an already made up mind who is unyielding in the face of bible facts presented.

you think im here to convince you guys? of what relevance or significance? but only for something im doing this, sincere and objective readers, thanks.

@Boomark

1 Angels.

2 Yes. Trinitarians take note.

With reference to 1, what of angel john the Baptist? Is he an angel from heaven who did not know/recognise angel Jesus when they were in heaven?(because he was not sure if Jesus is the messiah) Or don't you think these translations choose to translate "messenger" as "angels"?

your question answered! you ban us from translating,that we should show bible verse that
renders jesus an angel.that is it below, while john still rendered 'my messenger' it is another thing to start jumping to john issue now, but see the translation below,


mathew 7:10-11 Darby Translation (DARBY)

10 this is he of whom it is written, Behold, *I* send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.

11 Verily I say to you, that there is not arisen among [the] born of women a greater than John the baptist. But he who is a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he.

malachi 3:1

##....Darby Bible Translation
Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall
prepare the way before me; and the Lord
whom ye seek will suddenly come to his
temple, and [size=18pt]the Angel of the covenant, whom
ye delight in[/size]: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah
of hosts.

are you satisfied now before translating? tell us pls

Douay-Rheims Bible
Douay-Rheims 1899 (one of the oldest bible)

Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare
the way before my face. And presently the
Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the
testament, whom you desire, shall come to his
temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord of
hosts.
________________________

Darby Bible Translation

Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall
prepare the way before me; and the Lord
whom ye seek will suddenly come to his
temple, and the Angel of the covenant, whom
ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah
of hosts.

[size=18pt]and who is the angel of the covenant whom we delight/desire?[/size]

hebrews 7:22

22 ''by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant''.

Hebrews 12:24


24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Hebrews 9:15

15[i] And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.[/i]

@True2God

U dnt seem to want to say 'Yes, Jesus christ is an angel'. Thats the dilenma, but u can muddle-up unrelated verse to say Jesus christ is arch angel Michael. But if i put it up to u to giv a direct response by simply sayin 'Jesus is an angel' u wnt want to say dat.

The point here is dat if JW comes up with the latest publication that says 'Jesus is not angel michael' u wll naturally change ur perception on dis belief. Thats not an independent way of reasoning, basing ones interpretation of the bible on an organization that hav made differnt changes in their doctrine or belief (the light gettin brighter fallacy).

If watchtower had published many articles earlier that r presently being considerd false or mistake (by the same watchtower), what gives u the impression dat there is no current belief they held that is false? U dnt seem to knw the history of watchtower my sister. From failed prophecies to change in doctrinal belief. My question to u again is, 'is Jesus christ an angel'? U can do me a favour by bein straight about it.

i have answered in page 17 before, and im answering now again, [size=18pt]yes,[/size] he was once reffered to as angel malachi 3:1.

okay?

@frosbel

Sir, I am too busy these days, so might not be able to answer you point for point.

There is no way we can agree on this one.

It is almost blasphemy to suggest that Jesus Christ was angel Michael, he was not.

You are basing your understanding not on the bible but the teachings of the JW or SDA.

Jesus is simply the Son of GOD , a MAN who gave his life for you and me. He is now exalted above all power and principality and this includes Michael.

Try and read the bible without the bias of organisational interpretation, you just might learn a thing or two.

see the question again! not about jesus being an angel,not yet time,but

considering

hebrews 2:9;

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

you are yet to answer this questions;

1, is it an insult to God that jesus was made a little lower than the angels(on earth)?

2, with his lower rank than the angel(on earth) is he qualified to redeem humans?

taking into consideration that 'you are making a case based on qualification' that angels are just low to be qualified for redeeming humans,

answer 1 and 2 above pls!

frosbel

[size=28pt]Where art thou[/size]?

using your analogy;

which you did have to your own advantage;

you said jesus did not pre-exist before beign born, which means when he was born as a human,(lower in rank to the angel),with the sole purpose of redeeming humans,

he is lower in rank to the angels(while on earth) was testified in hebrews 2:9

heb 2:9;

9 But we see [b]Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [/b]for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

you are yet to answer this questions;

1, is it an insult to God that jesus was made a little lower than the angels(on earth)?

2, with his lower rank than the angel(on earth) is he qualified to redeem humans?

taking into consideration that 'you are making a case based on qualification' that angels are just low to be qualified for redeeming humans,

qualification-wise, is he qualified (on earth)to redeem humans?

if you start your Movement now, how do you answer your members these question popping up which you are yet to answer?

@plappvile

Thats not the ansa to my question. Frm ur 'research' and conclusion is Jesus chris an angel? Yes or no. I dnt think this simple question is in anyway ambigous.

you see arrogance? question dey answer question! that is an evidence that they have nothing to hold on again than 'arrogance'.

even 'frosbel' has ran out of gas completely with his advantage of freethinking could not reply my last question above,while i have answerd his,this is due to the fact that he ignored bible warning....''do not lean on your own understanding''prov 3:5 frosbel says noo, i must lean on my own underatanding to my own advantage. he con enter gbege!