₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU: The hall of shame of the accusers of the brethren:





















If they don't repent they shall have their part with the devil who they are sharing a title with.

(Rev.12:10-11).

(1 John 3:.

[size=18pt]
DIVERSIONARY![/size] you need people who shares your sentiment to bail you out, sorry Baba-ndagbe lo wa nisin!

image 123

you are making a case for two pics, while your oga;OLA was making case of one picture, but same picture altered, but you are trying to make up the fraud detected in the one he said to be untouched by saying 'probably' (you are not sure and should have shut up) taking in a shaddy place, as in when someone is a place where someone do make a shaddy deal, like kidnappers hideots, drug pedlers, and rapists hideout, they do hide in an uncompleted and unplastered shaddy houses like these below;

unplastered building exposing conduit wires!

Image123

Image123: This is very dull thinking, kindly think out of the cage in your shabby attempts at critique. Those are TWO different pictures of the same person on the same day. One in a church, the other probably outside in a shady environment. minds can indeed be blinded.

probably in a shaddy environment, indeed! birds of same feathers! soiling the Deeper life church by supporting obvious fraud

why dont you comment on these further alterations on the pics supplied by your friend below to fool people like you;

[/b]provide a parent picture of B1, now google SAMPLE A and you will find plenty pictures marching it, which shows SAMPLE B2 as authentic


1, [b]why the big hat? and small hat, comment on that oryou need big lenses to see it the same woman in green wearing big hat in SAMPLE B1 and small hat in SAMPLE B2 respectively in the same occassion? haba? compare to parent picture SAMPLE A we have a small hat, why is it big in your friends photoshoped pics, and he needs support from people like you to save face,

do you fear him? then why cant you ask him first before you pass insult?

2, why are we having two set of hands, a cut out of hands resting on another hand besisde the flowers, or is the flower standing on nothing?

OLAADEGBU

An idle mind is the devil's workshop. When will you and truthislight start distributing your "Awake" magazine to occupy your time?

.

instead of you to counnter the claims with proofs that you did not photoshoped the pics, you could not! but rather you resorted to accusing JWS, im not one of the JWS, im not even aware of what ensued btw you and them, and i dont even quote from jws bible, so dont divert the issue here, and stop insulting peoples inteligent here! answer these allegations that put your reputation on line here, dont fan sentiments so as to hide the fraud you did here.

The bone of contention here is that the bride didn't wear earrings as the unaltered picture shows but I know you are not used to propagating the truth but lies from the pit of hell

have you proved that the picture you provided(SAMPLE B1) was not altered?

# facing down
# picture pasted in an uncompleted building exposing the conduit pipes, was the wedding done in an uncompleted building? grin grin a desperate attempt to get a background like that of the church in SAMPLE A (poor job)
# two hands wearing rings were cut out and placed beside the flower to cover-up poor blending with the woman in green,suggesting that no hands were holding the flowers at all! incredible! grin grin grin
# the woman in green cloth beside the bride was wearing an oversized hat but in the original (SAMPLE A) it was a small/moderate hat.

and that SAMPLE B1 (that you reffered to as untouched) was zoomed, and the manipulations were shoking! yes shoking!


SAMPLE B1 is not the same picture as SAMPLE A, SAMPLE B1 is at its best (cut out) from one of the pictures taking from the brides dressing room before she wore the jewelries, lets compare the features with SAMPLE A

features of SAMPLE B2 that totally agrees with SAMPLE A;

# she smiles,
# facing up,
# and gripping her flowers (at the stem) with both hands,
# and the woman beside the bride was not wearing a big hat,
# moreso, the wall of the church was plastred


why are you dodging the obvious truth here?

what im proving now is that, since the picture you posted as unaltered (SAMPLE B1) has no parent or further features traced to another authentic picture like (SAMPLE B2) that agrees with (sample A)

im saying that since you have failed to produce a parent picture of same and with further features traced to another authentic picture like (SAMPLE B2) that agrees with (sample A)

[size=14pt]that you have requested for a picture of the bride taking from the brides dressing room before she wore the jewelries, photoshoped it, to deceive people, and it was exposed as the features around the bride like BIG HAT, unplastered wall, and two hands cut out to make up blushes btw the bride and the woman in green, unless you supplied a counter picture on this tread[/size]

see it again;

OLAADEGBU

You no get work

[size=14pt]at least, you have been exposed![/size] for insulting the couples, doing their wedding in an unplastered church!


i dont pray to have a criminal job like those distortions above, wait is jesus in support of those obvious forgeries? where is your concience brother, instead of insulting!

i have noyhing agaisnt you, but you went too far!ok?

[size=14pt]as you can see, there is nothing that warrant those (hands cut) out and pasted beside the flowers (in the two pics above), the bride is already gripping the stem of the flower with her both hands, see below; [/size]

[size=14pt]im not insulting the couple,neither the deeper life church, but the manipulator of the pics INSULTED a couple from US and jamaica posing them doing their wedding inside an unplastered building in the picture supplied to cover up above? habaaa! [/size]

Bigcake

Bigcake: U better repent and accept Jesus Christ as ur personal Lord and Saviour. Stop this joblesness now.

INFACT! the picture manipulator does not know that jesus is watching that criminal act, he is really jobless, pls thank me for exposing the photoshoped hands of jacob and legs of esau above!

How can a couple from US and jamaica do their wedding inside unplastered building in the picture supplied to cover up above?, unplastered building HABAAAA

can anyone glance this, maybe im not correct? should supply further and counter proofs;

OLAADEGBU: Before you begin to laugh try comparing the two pictures below:

https://www.nairaland.com/1330381/pastor-kumuyis-son-ties-knot/10#16415012

Having compared the two pictures, im disappointed for the fact that the picture, (tagged Sample B) which you supplied was misleading, and a desperate attempt to cover-up, which further soiled the seeming reputation of the deeper life.

to prove that the picture you supplied is totally misleading, after carefull consideration,

below is:

SAMPLE A, a bigger picture that capture more of the people around and inside the church of which the deeper life faithfuls are not denying,

SAMPLE B, is a combination of the pics of the bride splitted further to, B1 and B2 respectively, B1(you reffered to as untouched) and B2(that you falsely claimed that was altered)

SAMPLE B2, Zoomed and compare with SAMPLE A was a direct copy of the bride without argument,features of SAMPLE B2 that totally agrees with SAMPLE A;

# she smiles,
# facing up,
# and gripping her flowers (at the stem) with both hands,
# and the woman beside the bride was not wearing a big hat,
# moreso, the wall of the church was plastred

SAMPLE B1 (that you reffered to as untouched) was zoomed, and the manipulations were shoking! yes shoking!


SAMPLE B1 is not the same picture as SAMPLE A, SAMPLE B1 is at its best (cut out) from one of the pictures taking from the brides dressing room before she wore the jewelries, lets compare the features with SAMPLE A

# facing down
# picture pasted in an uncompleted building exposing the conduit pipes, was the wedding done in an uncompleted building? a desperate attempt to get a background like that of the church in SAMPLE A (poor job)
# two hands wearing rings were cut out and placed beside the flower to cover-up poor blending with the woman in green,suggesting that no hands were holding the flowers at all! incredible!
# the woman in green beside the bride is wearing an oversized hat, [b] but in the original SAMPLE A it was a small/moderate hat.
[/b]

so, until a bigger picture of SAMPLE B1 showing naturally people around it is produced to counter this SAMPLE A, this particular act of (1)misleading, and (2) criminal manipulation further soiled and put more shame to the faces of the producer of the picture.

dont bother try to remove this pictures, i have saved them , i dont need special permmissions!

https://www.nairaland.com/1350911/must-read-dust-raised-john/7
https://www.nairaland.com/1350911/must-read-dust-raised-john/6

what are two hands fixing rings doing beside the flower( the hands were cut out from another pics and pasted directly beside the flower) e gba mio!!

[size=18pt]was the wedding done in unplastered church?[/size]

OLAADEGBU

OLAADEGBU: Before you begin to laugh try comparing the two pictures below:

https://www.nairaland.com/1330381/pastor-kumuyis-son-ties-knot/10#16415012

Having compared the two pictures, im disappointed for the fact that the picture, (tagged Sample B) which you supplied was misleading, and a desperate attempt to cover-up, which further soiled the seeming reputation of the deeper life.

to prove that the picture you supplied is totally misleading, after carefull consideration,

below is:

SAMPLE A, a bigger picture that capture more of the people around and inside the church of which the deeper life faithfuls are not denying,

SAMPLE B, is a combination of the pics of the bride splitted further to, B1 and B2 respectively, B1(you reffered to as untouched) and B2(that you falsely claimed that was altered)

SAMPLE B2, Zoomed and compare with SAMPLE A was a direct copy of the bride without argument,features of SAMPLE B2 that totally agrees with SAMPLE A;

# she smiles,
# facing up,
# and gripping her flowers (at the stem) with both hands,
# and the woman beside the bride was not wearing a big hat,
# moreso, the wall of the church was plastred

SAMPLE B1 (that you reffered to as untouched) was zoomed, and the manipulations were shoking! yes shoking!


SAMPLE B1 is not the same picture as SAMPLE A, SAMPLE B1 is at its best (cut out) from one of the pictures taking from the brides dressing room before she wore the jewelries, lets compare the features with SAMPLE A

# facing down
# picture pasted in an uncompleted building exposing the conduit pipes, was the wedding done in an uncompleted building? a desperate attempt to get a background like that of the church in SAMPLE A (poor job)
# two hands wearing rings were cut out and placed beside the flower to cover-up poor blending with the woman in green,suggesting that no hands were holding the flowers at all! incredible!
# the woman in green beside the bride is wearing an oversized hat, [b] but in the original SAMPLE A it was a small/moderate hat.
[/b]

so, until a bigger picture of SAMPLE B1 showing naturally people around it is produced to counter this SAMPLE A, this particular act of (1)misleading, and (2) criminal manipulation further soiled and put more shame to the faces of the producer of the picture.

dont bother try to remove this pictures, i have saved them , i dont need special permmissions!

OLAADEGBU

OLAADEGBU;Junk journalism. Who told them that the bride wore jewelries?

hello sir,

are you denying [b]item no 3 [/b]on the photo as 'not jewelries'?

compare with a faithfull member in the opposite

[size=18pt]EMPTY OLD STORIES WITHOUT SUBSTANCES[/size],


My observations;

You will learn that

1, jws never fix a date

2, All quotes about the dates above were 'severed from original contexes and mischieviously presented alongside manipulations,'they failed to paste a whole page of same source they alledged, but 'cut phrases mischieviously and joined to other phrases in order to mislead' accusers failed to produce original copies which could stand a trial in a court, as it is, they are mere speculations, and calculated attempts to discredit jws without a 'confirm proof'

3, fixing a date and hour is what goes against the jesus rule. pointing to events and forming an opinion concerning 'an end' is appropriate for christians, because of an imminent end which can happen at anytime, how do you keep on the watch? so that you will be found blameless if your sense of Gods day is dulled and rather you join riddiculers? the

same thing experienced by paul;



2 Peter 3:1,3,9,11-16
NIV(New International Version)

1, Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to[b] stimulate you to wholesome thinking. [/b]


3, Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives

14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.



3, Events of world wars then triggers what could be the end, which is the right thing to do by 'a way of reminder' only to those who wants to live a way of life that pleases God,

JWS EXONERATED!, TREATED EXTENSIVELY HERE ON THIS NAIRALAND LINKS;



https://www.nairaland.com/780846/failed-prophecies-watchtower-society-references/1
https://www.nairaland.com/780846/failed-prophecies-watchtower-society-references/2
https://www.nairaland.com/780846/failed-prophecies-watchtower-society-references/3

well said up there by BARRISTERS

I concur!

i did show you,

Angel of his presence who was a 'savior and redeemer'

Isaiah 63:9

"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old".

thing is am tired of going round and round of same thing... so no point continuing and thats what others felt..

.

sorry, because your points are not convincing me at all, the one i agree with i have indicated that above, you need to defend with enough facts beyond any reasonable doubt

its funny that you are talking of others, pls THEY GOT NOTHING TO OFFER, its like asking you to defend your CV, but you can only defend part but couldnt defend other part and wants the interviewer to be convinced just like that when others can defend every detail of their CV off-hand.

so, if you say that you are tired , Good, you have tried, but not convincing, but for others of the same view? Nothing to offer, bible speak about 'true believers with nothing to be ashamed of'

i dont need to go to other treads, but if i went through and deem it neccesary to join, i will... this one was sanitised to a level, thats my criteria, but i would say that it is to my credit that you left, again you are welcome.


lest i forget, you said in your last post that ; 'another wrong teaching you guys are making...' pls add 'in your opinion' you may found out that what you perceive is only limited to you, and you cant force anybody, i cant for you neither you force me, unless we come to a round table a debate, and present facts!

thanks

benalvino

Am asking to provide a scripture that says Michael is another name for Jesus or Jesus called by the name Michael... till then adius.

it is not neccesary because of the fact that 'throughout the old testament' the name 'jesus christ' was hidden, not even mentioned or used even once from Genesis till malachi, but only revealed in the NT. it is Gods grand plan to keep the name 'jesus christ' secret throughout, are you saying that jesus is not existing throughout the events in old testament? he was, i will show you some points in my next post only if it will be neccesary, i will provide proof beyond reasonable doubt.

truthislight

friend, benalvino is not making a case of who is wrong, he said 'even if you are wrong'(a subordinate clause) anyway how is your sunday?

truthislight;He is not wrong!

i think i like benalvino for his consistency, others fled with nothing to contribute at least on this tread.

benalvino

benalvino: [size=28pt]Sorry man no one to play with you here. i am done going in circles ... So you Win even if you are wrong[/size]

[size=28pt]wow![/size] im honored with this (in blue), although im not seeking the credit but the truth, but all in Gods glory,

you are welcome bro. benalvino, take my e-handshake of friendship, abi we still dey fight? pls accept my warm greeting, im not bothered by some insults here, i deal with clients that are more insultive but i keep my focus!

To show you that im not taking it personal with you, for example, when you create a tread saying that i and others 'said satan is devine' when you cannot trace just one comment from me to confirm that, i choose not to comment on that tread because it will be diversionary, but you ironically you were the one defending God instead of us that you joined on the tread, i do agree with your point on 'the freewill issue' that God gave to man and must commend you on that even though you create the tread with bias. i stand for the truth, and that does not mean that i will not disagree with you in any controversial topic, thats why i love christianity more than islam, we can debate having common grounds.

again you are welcome!

benalvino

then are 100 years old... still like a baby to KJV.

im not saying that king james is not the oldest, i have aknowledge that earlier, but the king james you quoted [(post i tagged 1(#j)], is the recent King James 2000 Bible (©2003), cant you see that?

anyway you are fighting the bible. you have seen jesus rendered 'angel of covenant' there.

benalvino: the thing is they translate it wrong

you still maintain that? no problem,

lets see who is wrong,(they or you) pls dont tear your bible or start imputing error! error! error! if you see this o,



[size=14pt]now lets proceeds to where i will show you from your own bible now, this angel of covenant (in malachi 3:1) who, was also savior, and a redeemer also rendered angel in your own bible now;

Isaiah 63:9

"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old".

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old".

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old".


who is the savior and redeemer ? deny this again and i will still show you more![/size]

benalvino

now you are saying that you lift it from somewhere and when its on your neck u show it. lol...

lift what? you think that is where i got the darby bble and dual rheims from? no , check the links again and read-only, i dont lift works but rather i dig on my own to form mine opinion,

let me add two more bible that rendered jesus angel of covenant;

(1) Malachi 3:1
Amplified Bible (AMP)
3 Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me. And the Lord [the Messiah], Whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; the Messenger or Angel of the covenant, Whom you desire, behold, He shall come, says the Lord of hosts.


(2) Malachi 3:1
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
3 Lo! I shall send mine angel, and he shall make ready the way before my face; and anon the Lord, whom ye seek, shall come to his holy temple, and the angel of the testament, whom ye will. Lo! he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts

plus this

(3)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.

(4)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.


i have four good witnesses of verses here benalvino, four cant be wrong! infact i only 3 witnesses to establish my proof but i provided over.

while you are yet to provide just a verse that said 'father son and holy spirit are the one beign that is God'

you are reduced to a spectator brother benalvino,you cannot quote any verse again but keep repeating john 1:1 which does not provide 3 people you claim is God, or phil 2:9 in a desperate attempt, you are hung on that rope. spectator brother benalvino see how your eyes dey see double-double with new verses im pouring out;

where are thy friends and co partners? at least they can give you a lifeline while you are on a hot seat, they are mute,chai!

you said that it is only the JWs that believe that jesus is micheal i just showed you a man's link ray foucher who also share the same view but not a witness, again, i dont lift works, darby bble and dual rheims were not even in his works, check again, i think by now you should know that im not a jw, so direct your attack somewhere else! check the link again and show me what i ever copied word for word.

i only provide you with the link only to clarify that NOT only jws that believe that jesus is micheal, instead of you to admit that you dishonestly wants to change the topic that you earlier raised that only the JWs that believe that jesus is micheal

benalvino

angels are messengers, according to the defination, we have spirit messenger which jesus before was one of them, and we have human messengers who are ministers or prophets,

so according to you john the baptist is an Angel along with Christ in that passage...
Again attempt to tie Jesus with Angel = FAIL.

john is a human messanger and reffered to as angel, yes according to the bible, this agreed with the defination of both greek and hebrew of angel, (Angelo) and (malawk) מלאך

mal'âk

mal-awk'

From an unusud root meaning to despatch as a deputy;[size=18pt] a messenger ; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet}[/size]

let me show you people who are like john and are called human angels/messengers.

can you kindly tell me who are the 'angel of these churses below, they are human ministers of the churches, but are reffered to as angels, benalvino, check your bible and see them.

during pauls ministry, he entrusted the churches which are in Asia, Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea to a human ministers,also reffered to as angels just like john's case, this shows you that, what we think of angels maybe as a winged spirit creatures is not the real thing, i will treat the angel issue later in the day

Revelation 2:1 "To [size=14pt]the angel[/size] of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.

Revelation 2:8 "To the [size=14pt]angel[/size] of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Revelation 2:12 "To the [size=14pt]angel[/size] of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword.

will you start imputing errors like you did in 1(#j) on page 28,


but first,

tell me the nature of angels the way you believe that it was

[quote author=benalvino]

the statement above just shows he cant prove it... from the way he started it shows he has no strong evidence...



Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
By nature he is God... he wasn't a servant! He made himself nothing and took the form of a servant(MAN... not even angels)
he went from the nature of God to that of humans...

thy fellows are his apostles other messengers like Elijah, Abraham... Philippians shows you he is not at same league with the angels... but he took the nature of Abraham and other apostles... john 1:1-3 He was in the beginning with God... he was the word... the word was God(not an angel) his nature is firm...


John 1:1, 2,
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father [in the beginning] and has appeared to us."

add this to john 1:1-3 then add to Philippians 2:6 where he took the the nature of a servant(Man)

---

How did God manifest in t he Flesh... Emmanuel [God with us]
you know the work of the great John the baptist (Matt. 11:9-11) the zealous and privileged messenger who was sent to prepare the way of the Messiah according to the Word of God.

4 bible verses testify to this... below
"For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!'' (Matt. 3:3).

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way; 3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight,'" (Mark 1:1-3).

'This is the one about whom it is written, 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You,' (Matt. 11:10).

"He [John the Baptist] said, 'I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said,'" (John 1:23).

it is very clear that he(john) was sent by YHWH to make road for Christ, as all four quotes above demonstrate. and the malachi verse you bring is one of the 4 citations that testify to this along with the quotes from Isaiah...

[size=15pt]so according to you john the baptist is an Angel along with Christ in that passage...[/size]
[size=18pt]Again attempt to tie Jesus with Angel = FAIL.[/size]
further more

Isaiah 40:3, "A voice is calling, 'Clear the way for the Lord [YHWH] 1 in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for [size=14pt]our God[/size]." who is the Our God here? a clue for you is to read john 1:1-3 then also look at this verses

2 Peter 1:1 … through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
Romans 9:5 the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!
Titus 2:13 the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

---

Mal. 3:1, "Behold, I am going to send My messenger(john the baptist), and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord [adonai], whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts."
[/color]
This is telling you that Jesus is God with us... God manifest in the flesh...
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

analysis of malachi 3:1... I know desika use this to trouble ijawkid let me show you how...
Mal. 3:1, "Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts."
concentrate on the bold quotes above, John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way for Jehovah. Isaiah 40:3 says that John is to clear the way for YHWH (Jehovah). In Mal. 3:1, it is God who says that "he will clear the way before Me." yet this is fulfilled by the arrival of Jesus who is the Word and the word was God... in john 1:1
[size=18pt]You Failed Badly[/size]

Isn't the Verse you are bringing proving that Jesus is God and he is not an angel?

to conclude this...
the Bible says that John will clear the way of God, so it is Jesus who arrives on the scene. how come? Because Jesus is God... fully divine; that is, All the fulness of deity is in him Bodily (Col. 2:9). furthermore John 1:1,14 tell us "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." The fulfillment of John the Baptist as the messenger, and Jesus as God, clears the scriptures for us to comprehend.

---

final Part...
Jesus have so many names... some are same with the father... Michael is not one of the name used to describe Jesus...
Michael is one of the princes... which means there are some like him... Jesus rank is Above that... King, Lord need i say more?

3 reference to michael in the bible out of the 5 he is only prince in rank... nothing more

see how you own book mess you up here...
Who is the King of God's Kingdom? Jesus Christ. Jesus as King is greater than all human rulers and is called "the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords." (1 Timothy 6:15)" ("What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 2005, p.77. My emphasis)

Heb 1:5,13 NWT.
For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son ... with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"? (my italics).

this verse and the bold shows that not any kind of the angel... even michael... this question alone eliminate all kinds of angel... or every brand of angel...

the bible also stated that the World is not subjected to any Angel...

The Above is total[size=38pt]CRAP[/size]

[size=38pt]READ AGAIN![/size]

[quote author=BERNIMOORE]benalvino

and others reading the tread!

you dont need to agree with this below, but, its the real truth;


[size=18pt]Further Proofs That Shows Jesus As An Angel Before He Came To The Earth[/size]

'Thy Fellows' (definition; persons of equal ranks, position or background, a peer.)

Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.



obtained a more excellent name than than the angels because of inheritance, not by nature, but only by inheritance, and besides, that name was obtained, having obtained the superior name, the new name overrides the former one beign reffered to as angel, because he is been promoted

Hebrews 1:4
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


There Is Only One Archangel Who Was Micheal Before He Came To Be Born As Human And Inherit A Name That Made Him Better Than His Fellow Angels,(If You Doubt This, Nowhere In The Old Testament That Christ Was Called Gods Son, Even Jesus Christ Was Never Mentioned In OLD testament , Except Where it Was Decreed (in psalms)Or Predicted That 'Someone Will Be Called My Son' But That Person Identity Was Unknown)

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”

Hebrews 1:5

For 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?



God never said in affirmation to the would-be Christ while in heaven before he came to die on earth that, “you are my son’ I begotten thee Christ then was not entitled

Neither the angels and the would be-Christ(the arch angel) before he came to die on earth was qualified to be called ‘my son today I have become your father’

While in heaven before he came to die on earth, would-be Christ was reffered to by God the father himself as ‘messenger’ or angel,(malachi 3:1) which further destroy the claim that jesus was the same being that is God.

It was after when the would-be Christ came to die on and during his baptism by john that the pronouncement was made that;

Luke 3:22 "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

A date (today) was set on that day as to the commencement of when Christ was called by God as his son here on earth; 'You are my son; today I have become your father.”'

Hence;

Hebrews 1:5

For 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?

Answer; To the first of the angel, who was obedient and agreed to be transformed or born to a human couple, which as at the time he was called 'my son' by his father for the 'first time ever' he was already born as a human beign on earth (having took the form of man, and cannot be reffered to as angel as at the time he was on earth even though he was before) and thereby obtain or inherit a name that is better name only during the process and the period that he was human but later died and was exaulted above his peers having obtained a name better than that of the angels his fellow peers(formally) who were later subjected to him because he was obedient to the father who appointed him

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
By nature he is God... he wasn't a servant! He made himself nothing and took the form of a servant(MAN... not even angels)

kindergarten recitations,desperately glued to a verse in philipians,and no other one having beating black and blue all over. why cant you grow?

thy fellows are his apostles other messengers like Elijah, Abraham...

another forcefull statement, show me just one verse that state that jesus fellows are his apostles and other messengers like Elijah, Abraham

you cant

im tagging this obvious lie as 1(#M)

benalvino: you are a JW... JWs believe Jesus is an angel... Now they try to prove it by using some bible verses... But if jesus was an angel it will be Sweet for them to translate malachi 3:1 as angel it that is what is there... But nope it is not so they put the right thing there which is messenger....

you Choose Darby bible and duay bible that made a wrong translation... its funny how your own bible that all your doctrinal beliefs are coming from and every other bible doesnt agree with the 2 bible you quote from...

from the new world translation
3 “Look! I am sending my messenger,*+ and he must clear up a way before me.+ And suddenly there will come to His temple*+ the [true] Lord,*+ whom YOU people are seeking, and the messenger*+ of the covenant+ in whom YOU are delighting.+ Look! He will certainly come,” Jehovah of armies has said.+

and check every other bible... angel doesnt exist in that passage...
[size=18pt]Result = fail... you fail to prove Jesus is an angel[/size]

the oldest of the so called every other bible there was in 1995 just 17 yrs ago,

but of the 2 oldest bibles that used angels, they are older than your father, and the oldest should be relied on than the youngest! Dual Rheims 1899 is 113yrs old

benalvino,

here i come again after a tough day, im just going throgh the tread, and realised some additions,

let me treat them before sleeping;

you are a JW

a forcefull statement with no proof!

JWs believe Jesus is an angel... Now they try to prove it by using some bible verses...

wow, i just observe something in you now, that isyou are not the dynamic type, let me show you just one of those that showed jesus is the archangel who are NOT jws, and which i have their write ups in my library

RAY FOUCHER;

What are Angels?
What are Archangels?
Jesus and Angels
Michael the Archangel
(Part 1 of 4)
http://www.jesus-resurrection.info/what-are-angels.html
http://www.jesus-resurrection.info/what-are-archangels.html
http://www.jesus-resurrection.info/jesus-angels.html
http://www.jesus-resurrection.info/michael-archangel.html

so, you did not do your homework well, brother!


malachi 3:1

you Choose Darby bible and duay bible that made a wrong translation... its funny how your own bible that all your doctrinal beliefs are coming from and every other bible doesnt agree with the 2 bible you quote from...

Darby bible and dual rhelms bible are more than 1oo yrs, older than your father! and the oldest of all the bible you posted, i told you that you are not having probs with me but the bible Dual rhelms bible translated since 1899 the oldest of all the bible you quoted, so how can the 1995, 2002, 2003 recent translations who are younger be the correct brother? sinning agaist the holy spirit can be dangerous!

again 1(#j) jesus was called 'an angel of covenant'

Douay-Rheims Bible
Behold I send my[b] angel[/b], 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 [b]the Angel [/b]of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts.

benalvino
now, having show all these

show us bible verse that says that father, son and holy spirit are the same beigh that is God.

waiting pls.

benalvino

and others reading the tread!

you dont need to agree with this below, but, its the real truth;


[size=18pt]Further Proofs That Shows Jesus As An Angel Before He Came To The Earth[/size]

'Thy Fellows' (definition; persons of equal ranks, position or background, a peer.)

Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.



obtained a more excellent name than than the angels because of inheritance, not by nature, but only by inheritance, and besides, that name was obtained, having obtained the superior name, the new name overrides the former one beign reffered to as angel, because he is been promoted

Hebrews 1:4
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


There Is Only One Archangel Who Was Micheal Before He Came To Be Born As Human And Inherit A Name That Made Him Better Than His Fellow Angels,(If You Doubt This, Nowhere In The Old Testament That Christ Was Called Gods Son, Even Jesus Christ Was Never Mentioned In OLD testament , Except Where it Was Decreed (in psalms)Or Predicted That 'Someone Will Be Called My Son' But That Person Identity Was Unknown)

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”

Hebrews 1:5

For 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?



God never said in affirmation to the would-be Christ while in heaven before he came to die on earth that, “you are my son’ I begotten thee Christ then was not entitled

Neither the angels and the would be-Christ(the arch angel) before he came to die on earth was qualified to be called ‘my son today I have become your father’

While in heaven before he came to die on earth, would-be Christ was reffered to by God the father himself as ‘messenger’ or angel,(malachi 3:1) which further destroy the claim that jesus was the same being that is God.

It was after when the would-be Christ came to die on and during his baptism by john that the pronouncement was made that;

Luke 3:22 "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

A date (today) was set on that day as to the commencement of when Christ was called by God as his son here on earth; 'You are my son; today I have become your father.”'

Hence;

Hebrews 1:5

For 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?

Answer; To the first of the angel, who was obedient and agreed to be transformed or born to a human couple, which as at the time he was called 'my son' by his father for the 'first time ever' he was already born as a human beign on earth (having took the form of man, and cannot be reffered to as angel as at the time he was on earth even though he was before) and thereby obtain or inherit a name that is better name only during the process and the period that he was human but later died and was exaulted above his peers having obtained a name better than that of the angels his fellow peers(formally) who were later subjected to him because he was obedient to the father who appointed him

benalvino

am asking you biased guys to present a verse that says Michael is Jesus... or Jesus is angel yet you cant. lol talk about hypocrisy

on pg 28, when you asked me to produce a verse that jesus is the archangel, i provided 1 thessalonians for you where jesus himself shall decend with a shout using the voice that he possesed, that is the archangel's voice, definately if if he wasnt an archangel he cant use the voice.


now you just adjusted your question again now to provide a verse that shows that jesus is an angel(or beign reffered as angel/messenger) i did that again on page28 (im also tagging the obvious forgery of criminally imputing (error) without the consent of the translator (as 1(#j)) you were fighting the bible! but i have discharcged my duty on providing bible verse that refer to jesus as angel in mal 3:1, im not the one that wrote it, you even went ahead to imput something not added from the author;

see it again;
malachi 3:1
Douay-Rheims Bible
Behold I send my[b] angel[/b], and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel [/b]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[b] Angel of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts.

@ manmustwac

sorry i have to trace you here;

pls i just have to report 2 people to you, but one to me should be warned sternly or banned


his username is 'ITSFACTS' on this page below?

https://www.nairaland.com/1318212/firstborn-does-it-mean-first/27

see what he said;

ITSFACTS: You still change words with this two monkeys ijawkid and barister or bernimoore. This people brain are with there faithful and deceit slaves. Don't bother they are lust

on the latest page, today, here is what he said again:

https://www.nairaland.com/1318212/firstborn-does-it-mean-first/30

^^ITSFACTS: monkey an archangel no be angel?

he broke these rules of nairaland;

1. Please post on topic always. Don't derail or tribalize threads.
2. Don't abuse, bully, deliberately insult/provoke, fight, or wish harm to any Nairaland member.
3. Don't advocate or encourage violent actions against any person, tribe, race, or group of people.

imwaiting for your action pls

this tread was a distraction, he only wants his friends to join him!