₦airaland Forum

Jozzy4:
Mr answer his question and stop per ambulating - , Is Luke 1:35 not also about the child ?

It says the child shall be called Mighty God , Has he always been God or just God at the moment he was born ?

Like I said to your brother only a liar and dishonest person will deliberately omit something to hide under.

Why are you guys single out only MIGHTY GOD in that verse wasn't EVERLASTING Father written there too? Hypocrite!

And it's obvious the reason is that you believe Jesus is a mighty God before His birth but to take Him as an everlasting Father will shamble all your lies and evil doctrines.

Lastly, I'm still waiting for you to clear your lie that Trinitarians claimed that God the son existed before creation or birth...

Barristter07:
Just as Luke 1:35 was about the child. .

Don't forget your burden of proof rest on the statement " SHALL BE CALLED " Son of God. Which you said in your opinion means He wasn't Son of God before his birth. Despite it never says Will become .

At Isaiah 9:6 we saw the same expression " SHALL BE CALLED " Mighty God . Using the same logic, Does this not mean he wasn't a Mighty God before his birth emphasis on " Shall be called " ? That's what am asking you

Next time you remove EVERLASTING FATHER from your statement will be the end of my reply to you because only a dubious and liar will deliberately omit something to hide under...

Do you also believe Jesus was an everlasting Father before His birth? You didn't answer this.

Isaiah was about the MESSIAH not The word that became flesh...I quoted different commentaries to show you that Isaiah was directed to the MESSAIH and not His preexistence just as Luke addressed the Thing Mary will give birth to. Which means Isaiah was directed to the person of the Messiah that's even why I said "you may then ask, why using Isaiah as a proof of Jesus deity?"

You keep exposing your ignorance and evidence that you lack simple comprehension.

Barristter07:
@brown, And Isaiah wasn't directed to the child Mary will give birth to ?

The SUPER Question @ Highlighted with emphasis on your statement " He must be God " , Has he always been God ? Or only became God at his birth ?

After all my explanations you still couldn't grab it...na wa for you oooo

Now you're not after he was WITH THE FATHER...

Isaiah was about the child read it again...

The word of God became man...how does this hard for you to grab

One funny attitude of JWs is how you eat your cake and also want to have it.

You discard part of my post by removing them...why?

Barristter07:
John 3:38 established that at the point of been sent he was with the Father . so when it says God send his son, it refers to his pre human existence



While I was WITH the Father , does that ring a bell ?

If not because your brain is paining you...you'd not have said this!

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God,..."

Is it the Son that was with God?

I also asked you to show us where it was written that Son became flesh, you used style to boycot it and swept it under carpet.

What people see is a human being like them, The Word who became flesh is to be called The Son of God, if Jesus called God His Father, how do you expect Him to address people in reference to God?

The text never said WiLL BECOME SON OF GOD . as though he wasn't before, it says he shall be Called ... Compare with Isaiah 9:6 where it says the Child SHALL BE CALLED Mighty God , wonderful counselor '

Why He SHALL BE CALLED, if he was already Son before? You haven't answered this since I've been asking you...

Does that suggest Jesus wasn't wise enough before his coming to earth to be a wonderful counselor ?

To you Emusan, I ask: Does that imply he wasn't a Mighty God before coming on earth as well since it says Shall be called?

Firstly, why did you single out only Mighty God and not include Everlasting Father? You know the dubious act you play there because it'd contradict yourself and your doctrines.

Secondly, Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy about the feature Messiah, I don't need to stress myself here, all I'd do is just to quote some reputable Bible scholars:

"And his name shall be called — That is, he shall be: for the following particulars are not to be taken for a description of his proper name, but of his glorious nature and qualities;" Benson Commentary

"And his name shall be called - That is, his attributes shall be such as to make all these applications appropriate descriptions of his power and work." Barnes Commentary

"name … called—His essential characteristics shall be." Jemeison Fausset commentary

"His name shall be; for to be called in Scripture is off put for to be, as I have noted before on Isaiah 1:26, and oft elsewhere. But this is not to be taken for a description of his proper name, by which he should be commonly called, but of his glorious nature and qualities." Matthew Poole's commentary

"and his name shall be called Wonderful: not that he should be commonly called among men by this name, nor by any of the following; but that he should appear to be, or to have that in him, or to do what would sufficiently answer to this name, and to the rest:" Gill's Exposition

"his name shall be called] The name of the Messiah consists of a series of honorific titles, pertaining to Him in His kingly capacity and expressing mainly the qualities displayed in His government." Cambridge Bible for School

" His name shall be called. It is perhaps not very important whether we view what follows as one name or several. Isaiah does not really mean that the "Child" should bear as a name, or names, any of the expressions, but only that they should be truly applicable to him." Pulpit commentary

If you take your time to read the works of these people very well, you'd notice that they expressly talk about the person of the Messiah and never His preexistence.

You may then ask, why then this verse is usually being used by the Trinitarian to proof that Jesus is God?

The simple answer is, for Bible to applied title such as ETERNAL FATHER, MIGHTY God to the Messiah means He must be God.

And Luke 1:35 is a straight forward because the angel directed his message to THE THING Mary will give birth to.

That's why I keep asking you go and learn when the scripture is talking about Jesus before He came to earth and after.

Now let me quote this from your post:

Does that imply he wasn't a Mighty God before coming on earth

If not because you're a fraudster and dubious like your father devil, why didn't you include ETERNAL FATHER here

So, you agree Jesus has been an ETERNAL FATHER before coming to earth...

I have no issues with apostle Paul statement. It doesn't change the facts

You have issue because you've been shouting that it was Son, now apostle Paul says it is Christ Jesus.

Let me use this to round up my post with you...

Jesus said: "No one knoweth the Son except the Father" and also "I have a name written that no man knoweth except Himself"

So most times Bible is speaking about Jesus is solely applicable to His person in human form, only gives us a glimpse of who He actually is before His incarnation and only a well taught Bible student can see it not the ones Satan has blindfolded their eyes.

malvisguy212:
yes. unlike other, He was raised to die NO more. long time bro.

Smile...

Long time sir!

malvisguy212:
there was resurrection from the dead in the old testament and in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus was not the first to be resurrected from the dead. so again, what is the meaning of Jesus being the firstborn from the dead ?

The first to be recreated after death, you know he was raised as spirit

Barristter07:
Here is the Text you allude to.


John 17:18, “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.”

Emphasis on " Sent " .. Jesus disciples are from the earth . so we understand that at the moment of instructing them on what to say and their assignment, it was on earth.

Is Jesus from this realm ? Again: God send his son , from where? From where was he given instructions on what to say and speak?

One things stands out, he is a son at the point of been sent.

One funny thing from this hogwash is that you believe Jesus is a pure human nothing divine in his nature.

But all what you're being trying to prove point toward that THE PERSON in heaven is the same person on earth.

Anyways, I'm done replying you about being SENT

And He was saying to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. John 8:23

Does that ring a bell concerning his been sent inr the world ?

But you said Jesus is just a human and nothing divine in his nature, how come

I guess He borrowed the birth flesh just like He did after resurrection as you believe, right?

He replied to them: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme ,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”​ - John 10:36

Sanctified here means to be set apart , When ?
John 8:38 I am telling you the things I have seen while WITH the Father.

Who doesn't know?
But your John 3:38 doesn't have anything to do with that

He also said the father has told him what he is to say

And the instructions can't come while on earth.

All this occur with his been set apart for a special assignment. Yet he said while with the Father . showing he is a son..

Olodo....
From Luke 1:35 which you haven't grabbed...the angel has already established that the thing Mary will give birth to SHALL BE CALLED the Son of God...so what is the fuse all about, if Jesus addresses God as His Father?

The person called Jesus Christ was sent from where?

Look at the choice of words you used here, it means there's another person outside the person of human Christ.

Funny I can see you find it hard to explain Apostle Paul statement. But remember you've been shouting what God sent is SON now Apostle Paul says Jesus Christ.

That PERSON is the WORD OF GOD who became human and called The Son of God.

Barristter07:
I take this as no response .

Here is your statement


Are you created despite you were born ?

Are mountains BORN ?

Of course only JWs will not know the reason why human are called creation of God.

Silly you, why did you remove earth?

Yes mountains are born from your ass

Barristter07:

In addition to Galatians 4:4 emphasis on Sent . when was he sent, at that point was he a son ?

John 3:17

" God ... Send his son INTO the world "

Whom did God send INTO the world ( it was in the world that Mary gave birth to him ) ?

Christ sent His followers INTO the WORLD
Christ said every man that cometh INTO THE WORLD
After seeing the miracle that Jesus did, they said: "...this is of a truth that prophet that should come INTO THE WORLD"

Being on earth doesn't mean you can't be sent into the world.

Christ said whom the Father hath SANCTIFIED, and SENT INTO the World...was the sanctification happened in heaven or at birth?

Apostle Paul says: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that CHRIST JESUS came INTO THE WORLD... "

So it's no more Son that came it's now Jesus Christ.

I'll continue to expose your scriptural ignorance.

Jozzy4:
In Trinitarianism this "Logos" is also called God the Son OR the second person of the Trinity. Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that "It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ."[3







https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence_of_Christ

It will continue to haunt you

If not because you lack basic English

Your highlight says "the Son, existed before the incarnation" is it the same with "He existed AS God the Son"

Where was this statement "...He exists as GOD the Son before creation or birth" ever been made?

So far you're just a lying JWs like your father devil...

Barristter07:
Is he not first already from the dead and creation ?

Emphasis on " AlL things "

Those areas I mentioned are already established

Has he not become the firstborn in some things?

Read my post above

Are mountains and the earth born?

Yeah they were born through your ass

Now you have added earth...if I asked you to provide evidence, you'll be crying me a river.

Jozzy4:
Let me understand your understanding of the first statement was shallow

What about the second that was made to clarify it that same yesterday ?

Is that not proved ?

Why is he a Son ?

You're still lying....

From the links you provided, where did you see it written that He EXISTS As GOD the Son either before creation or birth?

Even the links you provided never claimed this... yet you're still lying boldly.

Just see how you're contradicting yourself in one post and no even place to hide your rotten shame face.

Jozzy4:
The text also ESTABLISH that he is the firstBORN of creation, did that occur when he came to earth too ?

So you didn't even get my explanation yet you're shouting like a rabies dog...

If firstborn of creation means FIRSTCREATED, then what is firstborn from the dead?

Now you'll change tune because you won't use the same meaning you have been given to "FIRSTBORN" since anymore.

Jozzy4:
By creation I mean earthly creations which you said Jesus become part of when he was born
Didn't you say Jesus become part of creation when he was born by Mary . I state my point from that angle , by born you refer to his earthly existence

. study context
2:08pm on May 28

I state clearly :


Trinitarians maintain Jesus exist as God the son before his birth


Are u so dull not to see that and understand my post in context ?

Is the highlighted not proved ?

Lying liar...now you begin to say you mean... Blah blah blah...

You now change from "Hahahaha they said he exist as God the son before creation,..." TO "Trinitarians maintain Jesus exist as God the son before his birth"

Are the two statements the same?

You need to enroll to an English class first before coming online to argue.

Jozzy4:
Let's see what might means

Is he yet to become first born from the dead ?

The text already established that "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,..." before "so that he might become the one who is first in all things"

And as a result of this v19 said the Father was pleased to have all the FULLNESS of Deity in Him...this is an evidence that what Apostle Paul was talking about is when the Word became part of the creation.

I just even notice something from your dubious organization...

Imagine, inserting the word OTHER from verse 16&17 only to drop it in verse 18 which is the same content...yahoo yahoo organization!

Jozzy4:
Who is identified as the second person of Trinity ? God the son! Don't be an idiot




Wikipedia



In Trinitarianism this "Logos" is also called God the Son OR the second person of the Trinity. Theologian Bernard Ramm noted that "It has been standard teaching in historic Christology that the Logos, the Son, existed before the incarnation. That the Son so existed before the incarnation has been called the pre-existence of Christ."[3



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence_of_Christ

Dull empty skull...

Your claim was "Hahahaha they said he exist as God the son before creation,..."

Where was it claim that He exists as GOD the son before creation

Why simple English is so hard for you

Brainwashed JWs!

Jozzy4:
You just described yourself

Is he yet to become firstborn from the dead ?

Silly empty skull...

Read my post again

Jozzy4:
You are silly, it mentions that he is firstborn already in some areas . Creation and the dead

Are you denying he is firstborn from the dead already. ? Or is he might become ? ...

Empty skull read my post again!

Jozzy4:
I know you will act stupid, that's why I added that Wikipedia quote that mentions what is meant by second person of Trinity, God the son

If not because you're a lying liar and don't have single iota of shame

You claimed "Hahahaha they said he exist as God the son before creation,..."

Yet from your links no where was the phrase "He exists as GOD THE SON" appear but you still have audacity to say someone act stupid.

Continue in your delusions

Barristter07:
O.ma se o .

Are you this dull, if he is firstborn in ALL things , does that not include been firstborn of Creation as well ?

O ma she o,

Shallow empty skull...

The point isn't because He is first in ALL THINGS but "BECOMING THE FIRST again", after you have claimed He is the first already...

It's read "so He MIGHT BECOME the one WHO IS FIRST in all things"

Why must he be the one to BECOME FIRST in all things if he was already the first?

First BORN of creation, how exactly was he born ?

Are other creations not born as well ?

What made him First ?

Creations were created not born.

Like I said, of you are asked that question, your BORN will suddenly change to FIRSTCREATED.

Hypocrite!

Jozzy4:
From got question. A trinitarian website
, " His pre-existence means that, before He became a man and walked upon the earth, He was already in existence as the second Person of the triune God. "
https://www.gotquestions.org/amp/pre-existence-Jesus.html

Now can you see the reason why I said you people lack simple comprehension?

This is your claim "Hahahaha they said he exist as God the son before creation,..."

Does this validate your claim?

SMH

Jozzy4:
master of low comprehension . in ALL things dey there nah , All things , take for example his been firstborn from the dead , that happens years after creation has been done . All things imply many other things to happen

Does it change his been firstborn of all creation ?

Barister ask una: How was he born ?

He isn't a son, yet called Gods firstborn ( Heb 1)



How was he BORN ? Explain . we know he was Gods firstborn before coming to earth . making him a son

The most pathetic thing about you people is lack of comprehension by ignoring the key point in a statement.

Lemme come down to a Nursery school level because that's where you people belong.

1. Christ is the firstborn of all creations to you this means Christ is first

2. This means Christ has claimed this position long time ago.

3. Now, the scripture says, "so that he MIGHT BECOME the one who is FIRST in all things;" NWT

4. From here we can deduce that Christ is not the first if not there is no need "HE MIGHT BECOME...FIRST" again.

Lack of scriptural understanding everywhere!

Jozzy4:
Hahahaha they said he exist as God the son before creation, only given the name Jesus on earth . Stop lying

Why called God the son ?

Provide the proof for where they say He exists as God the Son before creation.

Image123:
So you will answer others and ANSWER EACH PERSON whether visible or faceless social media inquisitors like me, but me i should be looking for JW family up and down? Is that not double standards? So i can infer that you are not interested in being born again or going to heaven?

That's one thing you can't take away from JWs, hypocrisy!

Barristter07:
Who are those addressed ? Humans on earth.

No angel in heaven, nonsense!

You mean the angel can't say "for this reason the Holy thing to be born is already Son of God"

Explain what you mean by " Word" _ statement's of God ?

Is Jesus the word of God?
Does the word become flesh?

Show me where it was written that the Son became flesh?

Barristter07:
You clearly do not understand yourself anymore. How can someone Made many years after creation has began become the firstborn of creation , if not that he has existed as Firstborn when creation began ?

I repeat you lack scriptural understanding and even lack how words are structured.

Lemme use your own translation maybe your dull skull can grab it this time.

"so that he might become the one who is first in all things;"

Why must He be the ONE to become FIRST IN ALL THINGS if He was already THE FIRST CREATED

That's the question you should rap inside your skull

How was he the FIRST BORN of Creation is the real question , don't you think ?

How was he BORN ?

Listen to yourself

How was he Born as Firstborn of creation ?

Only if you understand what you're talking about.

I know if I ask you to explain it now, your firstborn will suddenly change to FIRSTCREATED

Barristter07:
Firstborn is a child to his Father . one exist before the other.
If your postulation holds true;
Firstborn of Creation, How is he the one born first among all Creations ?

Because if his Father - Firstborn started on earth, he couldn't be the firstborn of all creation .

If not because you lack scriptural understanding, you'll have known that Apostle Paul was talking about when the Word became part of creation...that's why he round it up by saying "that in ALL THINGS he(Jesus) might have the preeminence"

The question we need to ask is, if Jesus is actually the first created being, why must Jesus still be in ALL THINGS have the preeminence?

But this can only be true if Jesus who was not created but the creator entered His own creation to take the first position over everything He created.

Barristter07:
Your shallow understanding would have been corrected if you address the Father figure.

I've done that just that your understanding is very shallow

Because no man will be involved in Marys pregnancy as she once thought.

You've repeated this lie once again, after I corrected you in the first instance.

The child retains his Heavenly Father

Then the angel shouldn't have used "SHALL BE CALLED"

Thou I know you have problem with English.

Extremely funny.
The word, you mean statements or pronouncement of God ?

Address this first .

Ask John that!

Or Jesus isn't the Word of God anymore?

Show me where it was written that "the Son became flesh"

Barristter07:
The question is simple: Has God always been his Father or only became his Father when he was conceived ?

The incarnation of the Word begins to have a Father immediately He became part of creation.

Barristter07:
Face the issue.


God sent his son

After which came the statement " born of a woman "

Isn't that clear enough ? Galatian 4;4

Am asking: Was God his Father before human birth or only when he was born?

If Jesus has been the son from beginning, why did the Angel say the child SHALL BE CALLED the Son of God? again?

And I also asked you, show me where it is written that the Son became flesh...but you can see where it's boldly written in John 1:14 that "THE WORD BECAME FLESH"

EOD

TATIME:
I read from the beginning to the end of his thoughtless speech and i found out that he has spoken nonsense and ingredients!

Then you lack simple comprehension of you actually did.

His problem is not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish his own! Romans 10:2-3

Rather, you're the very one who raising your own righteousness above that of God.

Whatever Jesus said could only be FULLY understood by His faithful followers who keeps begging for God's holy spirit to comprehend all the utterances of Jesus[the WORD of God] John 1:1

So you're still begging for God's Holy Spirit, I thought the Holy Spirit has been given to your GB to interpret the scripture.

We can then ask, has the Holy Spirit been given to you since you've been begging for it?

All the stupid fellow claiming pastor needed to do is humbly ask TRUE Christians what Jesus' statement meant!

Who told you the man didn't know what Jesus meant?

Out of your stupidity just to promote your evil organization you lost your reasoning.

For instance he quoted Matthew 5:39.
There Jesus talked about a slap on the cheek. A slap is never meant to kill but to humiliate someone, like to hurt the person's feelings and makes him/her feel worthless. If a man is slapped the assaulter meant to ridicule, belittle, downgrade or silence the victim, and if a woman is slapped {by a man} it's a sign of worthlessness as women cherishes been loved!

ITK...

So Jesus wasn't really talking about physical assault but a gesture or expression meant to humiliate someone.

Then can't you see from the statement that the man understood that Jesus didn't talk about physical assault but to draw a conclusion

If that should happen to a Christian, Jesus is saying that a Christian should make the one with the devilish act feel that we're ever ready to lay low! Luke 14:7-11

Who doesn't know this

Apparently this arrogant man full of ego called Pastor wouldn't agree with all of these, so he can never understand what Jesus meant!

ITK....imagine, you are even attacking the man base on a cherry picked message.

Do you think, the way the OP put it down here is how the man actually presented the message on that day or that's all what the man said throughout?

TATIME:
Of course Maximus refused to argue!
And that's our ministry for you. We're to make simple presentations before STRANGERS and if our presentation didn't sound appealing to the listener we must take our leave.
That is what Maximus{a new convert} is saying, but when you're not seeing the face of the one questioning you and such an inquisitor is insisting you should make a response then some of our brothers will feel like showing the one asking that WE KNOW HOW TO ANSWER EACH PERSON whether visible or faceless social media inquisitors like you!

You're not arguing yet this thread has entered 32pages what if you people want to argue?

Besides, the useless excuse of not arguing will come when you people are in tight Conner and your devilish doctrines are exposed but immediately one of you come, raises another issue which is different from subject matter, the rest of you found your barking voice again.

Your brother will spam my mention when I even try to ignore him....and you can still say you don't argue. Well I know hypocrisy and JWs are like 5&6