Myer:


You've spoken well as a bible scholar.

However, like I mentioned, I am simply stating the dissonance between what the bible teaches and what is reality.

You have simply stated how things ought to be, not how things are in reality.

The division is well pronounced.

God's plan for the church is not as much a mystery if you search the scriptures;

The Lord's prayer gives more insight to God's plan for the church, to establish on earth the kingdom of God as it is in heaven.

Is the reality today in any way in the likeness of what you would expect the kingdom of God in heaven to be? Considering the number of churches we boast of both in Nigeria and the world at large?

The reality is not in experience but in the truth of the scriptures. A believer realities are what the word of God says.

The word of God says the body in united, preserved, nothing can change that, No experience, no doctrine, no explanation or actions can change that. Hence what you see not that you call realities are only human perceptions of what the reality should be. And like i said, that will all fade away at the instance of the Truth and Reality.

Myer:


I grew up in a White garment background Celestial church to be precise. That was before joining the pentecostals.
Like I said, some doctrines came by personal revelation.

There are churches whose leaders found Angel Michael as a manifestation of God.
Till today Celestials believe the trinity to be God, Jesus and Holy Michael.

I've come to find that these are simply proofs that man cannot truly fully know God.

This is why when a Christian believes his own revelation of God is true and others' false, I simply see the person as naive.

God revealed himself to Paul in a different way He revealed himself to the other Apostles, even differently from his revelation to John who is so called the Beloeved of Christ.

I'm glad however that you admitted the contradiction in the bible although you also decided to defend the contradiction with your own exegesis.

How you still always manage to see contradictions amazes me. But know that there is no where i agree or stated that the bible is contradictory. You may need to read me well.


Now note,

You should patiently evaluate most things you called contradictions and you will see they are offshoot of experiences not biblical explanations. Most of these when subjected to Bible explanation, the proponent will either tell you his "that is my own experience" or "dont argue with God" etc. Those are sentimental ways of handling doctrines.
Most of those you mentioned, built doctrine on experiences not on understanding of the scriptures. Hence, they will always contradict the scriptural truths.

I have told you over and over again, that the scriptures has just a singular interpretation and until we all submit ourselves to discover this, we wont see clearly. So, what you call contradictions is with men not with the scriptures itself.

And as a case study you mentioned, God's revelation to Paul or any of the foundational Apostles doesnt contradicts their conclusions about God's mind. They reached the same conclusion. Yet i should let you know that it is a thin line trying to compare foundational Apostles to every other believers afterwards. They were given the scriptures to documents and write, we werent. Examine that thin line and you will find peace.

Maximus69:


That makes it easier to tell you that since TRINITY is not found written in the scriptures and Jesus wasn't directly called Michael as well, both teaching was based on reasoning from the scriptures!

So go and work on your TRINITY to unite adherents of your TRINITY God to form a global family of peace lovers. Jehovah's Witnesses will go and work on Jesus (Michael) to unite adherents of the teaching to form a global family of peace lovers.

Jesus (Prince of Peace) himself said "by their FRUIT you will know them" Matthew 7:16-20

Lol. Good you can agree that Jesus wasnt call Angel in the bible same as we dont have the word Trinity in the Bible.

But what you should know is that as Trinity is called a concept, it needs explanation. A concept doesnt mean the word exist, it simply means the expression was taught or explained. This is different from calling Jesus Angel, that is not a concept but a being. Hence, there is little room for you to explain that out without having direct citation. Every name Jesus is called, we have direct citation for it. So, you cant explain that away.

And like i have affirmed here, the one who preaches trinity have more scriptures to show, even if it is arguable base of knowledge. But the one who preaches Jesus as Angel will have to wrestle scriptures out to have such meaning.

The last time i asked for a scripture for Jesus as Angel, out of 5 that was wrongly quoted, only 2 has a direct mention of Jesus and angel, one of which used "voice of". The others does not even come close.
Now, looking at those two in context they still fail to justify such explanation.

But in a single scripture Jesus, the child (JESUS) was called wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting father. Arguably, these are words we can refer to call God too. Very explicit in the scriptures.

Also note that Jesus was severally called Lord by those he owe nothing, neither them owe him, nor he feeds, nor usurp authority over. Yet they call him Lord. Only God owns our lives and can be called Lord in such context.

So, not to go on and on, you cant succeed in defending what doesnt even have scriptural evidence in the first place. You can argue oneness of God against the concept of trinity, and have scriptures to examine but not as making Jesus as Angel. It has no root in the scriptures.

TATIME:


I think Abraham, Saul, David, Joab, were all called Lord in the scriptures so Paul was right! 1Cor 8:5
And since Jesus came to set a perfect example for us to follow, i think he worshiped the person we should all worship which can never be himself! 1Peter 2:21

Everyone called Lord in the bible have context to it. The word Lord means owner, the one who has control, the one i submit my desire to.

Abraham was called Lord by Sarah, as Abraham was her authority, her control. Same as those who Abraham owns. Saul/David was called Lord, same as we can call rulers Lord, because of their influence and authority over their people.


Now why is Jesus called Lord.

Let me give you the quote you submitted

1 Cor 8:5
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Note that he separated Jesus from many lords. Many lords will include Abraham, Saul, heavenly and earthly etc. Masters. Verse 6 pointed you that we have only one Lord, who is Jesus. That is in parallel to one God. He separated Jesus from the lords. and called him Lord (one Lord)

A modification of the verses will be.
...as there be gods many, But to us there is but one God
...as there be lords many, But to us there is but one Lord, Christ.

Note that in this context he is speaking about absolute authority. Who you submit your life to, who controls and own you. So, we have ONE GOD identified from the many gods, that is clear. The question i will now ask based on this is: How many Lord does a believer has. from what Paul is teaching.

So,
1. How many Lord do you have?
2. Who is that Lord?

Maximus69:

Just quote a verse where the word TRINITY is found written in the scriptures that's all!

You havent answered me since beginning of this thread when i asked you to show me where Jesus is called an Angel (Michael) in the scriptures.

You need to provide that first.

Crysthaniel:

Sorry

The sorry accepted. Thanks.

Crysthaniel:

Please go and read revelation chapters 4 and 5
And bring your conclusion

Is this an explanation or a joke?

You will do well to avoid coming into a discussion you can add nothing to.

TATIME:


~He prayed with tears to the one who can save him! Hebrew 5:7
~He said the father is greater than him! John 14:28
~He died and was raised by God who is his saviour! Act 3:15
~He got to heaven and stood at God's right hand! Act 7:56
~He said there are things the father knew that he doesn't! Matthew 24:36
~He referred to God as the father and God of all, both himself and his disciples! John 20:17

All these you listed are Christ humanity not divinity.

Father, Son is a reflection of humanity. Divinity is God.
If you want to discuss and truly understand the concept of trinity, you must first know the difference in humanity and divinity of Christ.

All scriptures you and your folks quote every-time to defend Christ is not God are scriptures that relate to his humanity. In humanity, Word became flesh, A glory was laid down (Phil 2:3-5) and enveloped himself in flesh. That is the Son. A God wont dwell among people as God, he has to be part of them in a way they will understand: as son, hence the word The Son of God, hence, The Father.

In John's theology, John told you the logos was with God (John 1:1). That is the logos cant be different from God. God and His word are same. He then point to you when the logos became the Son (John 1:14). He became Son in Humanity. Hence, every context afterwards will refer to Father, Son. That is the essence of salvation. So, in humanity, it is clear that he is a Son, God that became Son for the sake of man. Hence he has a Father. That is how man can relate with God's work of salvation.

For the fact that he is called Lord alone, should tell you something.

If you want to discuss who Christ is in divinity, pick scriptures that speaks about his divinity and examine, not his humanity.

Peacefullove:



Loser, show me where Jesus is called Almighty !!!


Secondly , Jesus is created thats why he is a Son of God.


I challenge you to show me where the Father Is called Son of God.

Listen to yourself and correct yourself. When you here FATHER, or SON, dont you think that refers to the perspective of humans? It is a revelation in humanity. God cant be pregnant to have a Son. When we say Father, is related to the Word became flesh.

John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

We have the Son, in flesh, humanity. Hence, the expression Father. In divinity what you have is God. Understand bible language. When you cant differentiate Christ humanity from his divinity, you will obviously find yourself in this error of interpretation you are. That is what the guy has been telling you since.

In Humanity you have: Father, Son, Holy-Ghost. Those are ways humans can comprehend the work of salvation.
In Divinity, what you will have is God.

Maximus69:


when men were sleeping {Matthew 13:25-26} the time men were sleeping refers to when all the Apostles have died,

That scripture you quote above refers to what you preached now. That is why you cant find anyone who preached such from the Apostles, to the early Christian that the Apostles taught or met in 1st and 2nd century. Your doctrine is a (Modern Day Revelation) MDR that emerge in the 3rd century. It wasnt part of the foundation of the church, At All.

All existing writing writing even few years after John the beloved died, showed that trinity was preached. So the weed sown by night is what you are preaching now. Go and check church history. Same as the bible.

Peacefullove:


Whose voice will raise the dead?

Bro, you no read your bible well o.

Paul isnt drawing explanation from the moon, i hope you know.

What Paul called his revelation are the explanation of the mysteries that is the Old testaments o. Paul's revelation are illumination and clarify of what OT teaches and what God is saying all through those period.

When you see Paul's writing, always ask yourself, where in the OT can i relate this. There is a mystery that is why you can have revelation. Revelation simply means to uncover a mystery. Mystery means what needs to be explained.

Let me help you.

There are at least 3 scriptures that have a synonymous to 1 Thess 4:16 (the voice):

There are 3 key things in that verse: the shout/command, the voice and the trumpet.
Jesus likewise taught about the second coming, read it o and compare scriptures.

Go and study please. And stop taking a single verse to mean what it doesnt mean or what doesnt have corroboration in the bible. Read Paul with open eyes please, i needed to get you.

Peacefullove:


Jesus is our brother, Do u agree?

When you answer that, it should be open to you the Everlasting Father is just a title.

See what i wrote below then compare to your response above:

You can see your explanation of Everlasting Father and also Mighty God. You seems not to be consistent again.

God is called gibbowr, only God is referred to as everlasting personality.

So, where is the brother story. Stop diverting discussion.

What is everlasting Father, is Father a brother?, and you said its just a title? You cant be serious with that. You think bible is a book of chieftaincy title?

The child is called MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, What does that mean. Stop rotating. Explain the bible.

Peacefullove:

Ignorance 102 I expected you to say Wikipedia lied. Good u didn't

" Now assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God , appeared to and communed with Moses. " Justin Matry, Dialogue with Trypho.

I just want to know the voice that will raise the dead.

Why are you cunning with your response? When your argument are shrouded in deception, you will be striving for another motive different from that of God.

You said Justin Matry preached that Jesus is an Angel and quoted "Dialogue with Trypho". The sad part here is you went ahead to lift his statement out of context just as you do the scriptures. That is very bad.


See below extract from the conversation.

Firstly in the context you quoted, let me give you the full quote.

God began before all creatures a Beginning a certain Reasonable Power from Himself, who is called by the HolySpirit, now the Glory of the Lord, and the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, the GOD, and then Lord and Logos.

This statement occurred in the 3rd paragraph of their discussion. In this line he used the word an Angel, the God. Hope you observe the article "the" used. Not a god. THE GOD. The God means true God. You subtly removed this from your quote. Hope you see you arent honest here.


Secondly, he has first explain his usage of the word "an Angel", earlier in his 1st paragraph. And that is the meaning it carried all through his explanation See below. This is how he started his conversation.

There is, and that there is said to be, Another GOD and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them.

Notice, he called Christ "Another God". He didnt say he is called so, he said he is Another God.


He said he is also called "an Angel" then he gave you a reason. He didnt say he is an angel, a being. His reason is clear: because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things

That is the same word for a messenger. The word messenger is the same word for angels. Hence as Jesus in the flesh was sent of the father, he called him a messenger (angel). This is consistent with the scriptures where those sent by God are referred as such.


The key context here is he called Christ, GOD, ANOTHER GOD. He didnt give a clause or reasons. He then said he is to announce what God wishes, that is where the work of the messenger is. And that is the one in the flesh.

Now, go and read his last paragraph and dont be in a rush.

---

In the last paragraph, Trypho asked him a question, see below and his answer.

Trypho Asked: You endeavor to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing, that God endured to be born and become man....


READ HIS RESPONSE VERY VERY WELL.

Justin Replied: Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called Lord and God in the Scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Christ, who by so many Scriptures was proved to you to have become man?

Observe his words: Jesus is worthy to be worshiped, called God and Christ.

He repeatedly affirmed that Christ is to be worshiped and called him God, he came to earth as Son. Those were his submission.

You must learn to be honest and open in discussion. Dont be slippery and shrouded, you dont need that.

---

So, i ask again,

Give me a single 1st/2nd century writer that preached that Christ is "an Angel". We have over five 1st/2nd century preachers who preached Christ as GOD, well detailed. These are people the oracle of Christ were directly handled to. Some were taught by the Apostles. So, show me one person.

Maximus69:


Ogbeni me i hate long story for TV o~ Acadia (Startime)

Just go straight to the point.

The title "firstBORN" is self explanatory, so this person remains a creature as long as the word BORN is applied!

If we interpret word as such then ROCKSON must be a son of a Rock, or Jackson son of car Jack. Even Peter himself must be a physical rock since it means rock.

When you cant read long post on serious issue that means you arent ready for discussion. It is obvious you arent reading the post at all, your questions showed that.

Firstborn are used in reference to Christ humanity, he came from God. Go and read what i posted again and carefully now.

Peacefullove:

U wanna run ?
Its actually vital. And key !!!

Whose voice will raise the dead ?

Early church Father's like Justin Matry teach that the Angel of the Lord is the pre incarnate Christ .

" The early Fathers of the Church, such as Justin Martyr, identify the angel of the Lord as the pre-incarnate Christ whose appearance, i.e. Christophany, is recorded in the Hebrew Bible. " Wikipedia .

" 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." Malachi 3:1 Darby

Who is the Angel of the covenant ?

You guys have a way of trying to muddle things up. You will need to calm down as i need to take you step by step.

1. I asked you for the early church who preached Jesus as Angel, you mentioned Justin Matry without a single quote from his work? Justin Matry works arent hiding, go and do your search yourself and read all his texts and submissions. I am not sure you are patient enough to read that is why you are quoting wikipedia. In such serious discussion as this?

My friend, you should go and read Justin Matry well. He spoken expressly on the Father, Son and HolyGhost.

His writing are in absolute submission to Christ as incarnate of the God. Different personality. Go and read before you start quoting him please.

When i see your seriousness we will visit 1 Thess 4:16 well and have a full discussion. I am yet to see that.

Peacefullove:


The issue with that Voice is , it states that when he descend with that voice , The dead will rise , question : Whose voice will the dead hear , Jesus or Another person ?

This is where it get trickier

As for Everlasting Father ... Its a title . Jesus had no children . he is our brother.

As for Mighty God , it says " He shall be called " ... Meaning he has not always been God, so you agree ? This is not the true God. Humans are also called El Gibboa

@Peacefullove

Ensure all you are saying doesnt contradict this yous aid above some weeks back.

You can see your explanation of Everlasting Father and also Mighty God. You seems not to be consistent again.

God is called gibbowr, only God is referred to as everlasting personality. Hence the one who has the power to give eternity. Everlasting Father, Father means father not brother o. Just make sure you arent mixing things up.

Maximus69:


The first born of all creations means he was born (created) before anything else Sir! Colossians 1:15

You may need to check record and history of our chat. You and I with your brethren have discussed this at lenght before. I wouldnt be giving such indepth explanation here as distraction, you can revisit the thread "Jesus Is God.See" by preciousgirl.


To paraphrase the conclusion.

Always read and explain in context, you like giving meaning to words out of its context. I told you that the word firstborn "protopokos", will not always be referring to creation or birth. It simply means to bring forth.

Note also, that context of Col 1:15 must be read together from 14 -18. Verse 18 also used the same word "firstborn" referring to him resurrection. First from the dead.

Verse 15 set out the essence by first stating "He is the image of the invisible God".

When image is used understand what it means. It is to carry thoughts, likeness, the very essence of God usually in natural. The firstborn in 15 cannot be interpreted outside that first phrase "image of".

Note that image will represent the physical symbol of what is not seen. E.g image of idols, image of Satan etc. A representative, that others can see and take to. The image of the invisible God, that is, the one and only one who others will take to. The reason he used firstborn.

Observe that in all usage of firstborn for Jesus, it refers to a model, refers to his existence in human.

Col 1:18 the firstborn from the dead
Heb 1:6 when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world
Heb 12:23 general assembly and church of the firstborn
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead

See also Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

A model son, the first to come from God referring to humanity, Firstborn, first to come from. The word "of every" in verse 15 is "over all".

Reading to verse 18, showed you he is firstborn from the dead. Death didnt gave birth, it means he came from. The first to came from place of the dead.

So, read well in context, it speaks about his humanity as per God's plan, his divinity as per creation and then his humanity as per resurrection.

You shouldnt be interpreting out of context of explanation. Always read at least the paragraph of discussion.

Maximus69:


So who was Proverbs 8:22-31 referring to?

You guys just like arguing blindly!

So if you read the OT texts the disciples quoted and applied to Jesus you will read from the chapter from beginning to the end shey?
OK try to read Isaiah 9 from the beginning to the end and try to correlate everything to see if you will be able to convince a Pharisee in the first century that verse 6 refers to the carpenter's son!

You are the one that will need to read again and again while also staying with Bible naration. You cant be assuming for the bible. You were the one assuming Prov 8 speaking about Jesus, and it is obvious that its to defend your stand.

Like i told you Proverb 8 never mentioned Jesus, you read that in. Or is it there? You read it in to support your point. That is exactly what is called eisegesis.


Who was Proverbs 8:22-31 referring to? No you should ask, what is Proverbs 8:22-31 saying.

The fact that you are seeing who there will always affect your interpretation. Giving human attribute to abstract thing doesnt mean it turned to who.


The word[b] wisdom[/b] was used about 222 times in the bible, by context it wasnt called human anywhere, but a virtue. Why will you get to Proverb and turn it to Jesus when he was not even mentioned.

What you read in Prov 8 is called Personification in English.

Personification: the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something non-human, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.

The writer is using language of literature to explain God's wisdom in creation. That isnt a person except you put it to be one.

We have examples of personification in the Bible.

Sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you. (Gen. 4:7) Who is sin then?
Sin wrought in me. (Rom. 7:
Sin is a Master. (Rom. 6:14) Is sin a person?
Law of Sin waging war. (Rom. 7:23)
Let not Sin reign in your body, that ye should obey it. (Rom. 6:12)

Jesus called money Master Matthew 6:24

Personification are part of literature and you wont take each time it is used to mean a person or human. We shouldnt lose our reading mind when reading the Bible. The text are simple and easy, dont let us complicate it.

Maximus69:


In a nutshell, when we hear the word Father and Son it simply means one caused the birth of the other! Proverbs 8:22

So angels o, humans o all are God's children because we all came into existence because of his will.
Also Jesus referred to as God's Son simply means he was born (created){Colossians 1:15} by the same father!

Firstly, read my last submission. Usage of Proverb 8:22 to refer to Jesus is a big error of doctrine. It simply means lifting scriptures out of its context. Let us stay with bible context in explanation.

Secondly, i am not sure you read what i wrote properly. It is well explained there. I guess you are reading what you want to read.

I have pointed you to where the essence of calling Jesus son of God came from. It isnt referring to creation but his humanity.

If i go by your premise, it simply means anything God created is son, angels, Adam, evil man, good man, even animals, Satan etc. We are all God;'s creation. This will be error. A word in a text should derive its meaning from surrounding text. No where does the usage of Son for Jesus referring to his creation or his divinity but his birth in the flesh only. He became son (humanity) for you and I.

Maximus69:


Jesus is angel Michael!

©Jesus is the one that came to die for our sins {Isaiah 11:10 compare to Isaiah 15:2} because he loved humans out of all the creatures God made through him {Proverbs 8:31} and the only angel mentioned to have stood for God people is called (Michael)! Daniel 12:

How you saw Jesus in Proverb 8:31 will be a mystery and an error of not staying to what is written. No single reference in this verse to Jesus. If we all take scriptures like this, we will all be in un-redeemable error.

Always stay in context of discussion. The greatest of all error are birthed from eisegesis like this. Proverb 8:31 is not referring to Jesus.

Likewise, your explanation here is with all scriptures you quoted are just juxtaposing as your brothers said i should do earlier.

Take note of this VERY IMPORTANTLY, there is no scriptures that refer to "love of Jesus, or Jesus loves the world" when speaking about his sacrifice and death. What scripture teaches is "God loves", "The love of God" is what gave the sacrifice. John 3:16, 1 John 4:19-21, Ephes 2:4-8, Romans 5:8.

All speaks about God's love and sacrifice of Jesus. You must understand the difference.

So, your above submission seems to be most out of context in all you listed. It doesnt even have a basis for discussion.

Maximus69:


Jesus is angel Michael!

©Jesus is the only begotten son of God {John 3:16} all angels are sons of God {Job 38:7} but one is singled out as the archangel (Michael) Revelations 12:7

WHO ARE THOSE CALLED SONS OF GOD IN SCRIPTURES
Firstly, being called the son of God isnt a strange thing in the bible. Note that even though you pointed out that angels were called sons of God, you refused to also show us that there are other instances when other creatures were called son.

1. Adam was called "son of God" Luke 3:38 38 ... which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

We cant from this conclude that Adam was an angel nor say Adam was Jesus.

2. The Psalmist referred to some humans as "sons of God"
Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

These arent angels, neither were they Jesus. So, stating that Jesus is called son of God means he is an angel is just an error of interpretation.

3. Christians/Believers were called "sons of God". Based on your submission, can we also conclude that every believer is an angel in heaven? since they are sons of God?

The phrase "sons of God" were not exclusive but must be interpreted in context.

Observe that the usage of "sons of God" for angels ended in OT. There is a reason for that. In NT we have the true light.

Hebrews says, God has not at anytime called ANY ANGEL SON.
Heb 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?

That stand in contradiction to the writers of the OT, yet not contradiction but better light. No angel has been called or referred to as son by God, Hence, that remove Jesus from that list of angels because he was called "son"


Why Are These Called The Sons of God?
The statement "sons of God" does not always mean a birth. It simply implies that these "comes from God". It is a term that identify those that are known to be sent from God. In OT context, this is the reason it was used for angels. Same as used for Adam.

For Believers, it refers to being come from God due to our identification with Christ. This also signify a birth from the spirit just as Jesus (John 3:5)


WHY WAS JESUS CALLED THE SON OF GOD

When you called Jesus son of God, you must understand its context. The context of Jesus as son of God is always referring from his humanity not his divinity.

Luke 1:31-32
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Observe verse 34-35
He is called son because he was to be born. That isnt a name from heaven, but signifying that he was born by the HolyGhost.
He came from God.


WHY THE ONLY BEGOTTEN?
The word "only begotten" is a single word from the Greek word "monogenes". Referring to only child. Note that this comes from two words:

"mono" which means only, one., alone
"genes" from "ginomai" The word "ginomai" implies to come from, to come into existence.

Hence, monogenes will implies "the only one who came into existence from God", i.e. the one who came to being from God, referring to his birth.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son

Observe that later in the epistles, Jesus was now referred mostly to as "first begotten", typifying that there are others which refers to believers in Christ.

Hence, in birth he was the only begotten, in resurrection, he was the first begotten.

In conclusion. there is no platform of justifying Jesus as angel in this context of "son of God". If we are to take everyone called sons of God in the bible as angels, then we will take Adam as angel, Children of Israelite as angels, believers as angels and that will mean we are all angels moving about on earth. This premise is false and such a an error of doctrine.

Maximus69:


Jesus is angel Michael!

©Jesus is the only begotten son of God {John 3:16} all angels are sons of God {Job 38:7} but one is singled out as the archangel (Michael) Revelations 12:7

©Jesus is the one that came to die for our sins {Isaiah 11:10 compare to Isaiah 15:2} because he loved humans out of all the creatures God made through him {Proverbs 8:31} and the only angel mentioned to have stood for God people is called (Michael)! Daniel 12:1

©Jesus is the one God's word said will lead the heavenly armies against Satan and his forces! Revelations 12:7 compare to Matthew 25:31

©Jesus will speak with the voice of the archangel! 1Thessalonians 4:16

©Jesus always revere Jehovah as his God and Father so Michael who is the only one referred to as the archangel must be the first and greatest of all the sons of God, no other person could have such glory apart from Jesus whom the Bible referred to as God's only begotten son (Jesus)

If anyone is still in doubt of this, let him point to any peaceful and united organization on planet earth because God's word called Jesus "the Prince of Peace" {Isaiah 9:6} there is no doubt that the group having this spirit person in their midst must be known globally for their LOVE {John 13:34-35} JOY {John 15:11} and finally PEACE {John 14:27}

I hope this is all the defence you can put up.

I will take each of your defence and scriptures one by one and explain why your submission cant be right.

Peacefullove:


The issue with that Voice is , it states that when he descend with that voice , The dead will rise , question : Whose voice will the dead hear , Jesus or Another person ?

This is where it get trickier

As for Everlasting Father ... Its a title . Jesus had no children . he is our brother.

As for Mighty God , it says " He shall be called " ... Meaning he has not always been God, so you agree ? This is not the true God. Humans are also called El Gibboa

What you picked up is not my question and it's just a single case out of over 100 cases in the scriptures. That isn't my question. When my questions are answered, we will proceed to treat those verses according. Before then answer my questions.

1. Who preached Jesus as angel in the 1st or 2nd century Christians. In all existing literature and texts, show or quote one person who preaches Jesus as Angel. Let's be sure whether such ordinance was handled over by the apostles.

2. State where Jesus is called an angel in the bible. Where the bible says Jesus is an angel. He

These are my questions. Leave the others for later.

I await.

Myer:

I'm good man. Better per second.
I have to come again when the conversation makes me climax. (Pun intended)

The issue of division in the body of Christ is undeniable, I mean I'm surprised you would question that except by reason of religious responsibility or necessity. I think at this point you need to embark on some missions and see the church beyond your local assembly.

The division is most magnified if you ever try to marry outside your own denomination especially, if you're from the Orthodox churches. (Catholic, Anglican, etc)

There is a grand canyon of difference in the churches, division in doctrines, in Exegesis, in mode of worship, etc.
I would know this because I sought the oneness of the body of Christ but never found it.

The division of the body of Christ is actually meant to achieve the similitude of division of labour. A part being the hand, another the eyes, another the leg, etc all working together in harmony, Christ being the head. 1 Corinthians 12:12-21
But clearly this is not the case.

You must FIRST AND FOREMOST, get this clear in your mind.

You will need to correct your view of the CHURCH.


WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REFERS TO AS THE BODY OF CHRIST

Firstly, the church is a body, BODY OF CHRIST. This is not primarily a physical assembly. It refers to a spiritual body, the resurrected body of Christ.

Everyone who receive the gospel come into this body. The gathering is as a result of this primary unification. For example, a man who got saved in a place where no church gathering or denomination exist is still part of the body, he is identify IN CHRIST, the body.

The headship of the body is Christ and the body is not divided. When a body is divided, it simply means the head has lost its control.


Take note of the following:

1. The physical assembly or denomination is not what is referred to as ONE BODY in Christ, but the single entity of the resurrected body.

1 Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.


2. The body of Christ can only and is only preserve by the Head (Christ)

Jude 24, 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,


3. The body is not referring firstly to physical gathering but spiritual body that identify us in Christ:

Ephes 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:


4. The head of the body is in full control of the body, hence the body is not divided or disjointed.

Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as[b] head over all things to the church[/b],


5. That the body has never, and can never be divided.

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.


6. You must always see Christ as the owner, the one nurturing, preserving the body ,

Ephes 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.


7. You must know that it is HIM alone that will and can present the body blameless and without spot even unto HIMSELF.

Ephes 5:27, That HE might present it TO HIMSELF a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


8. That the duty of unity of the body is done by Christ alone.

Col 2:10 and in Him you have been made complete


Note that all the above scriptures emphasized our oneness in the body. The unity of the body is the work of the HolyGhost and it is on individual. This is dont when you came into Christ. You are unified with the body. Denominations arent formed in Christ or unified in the body but individual.


I will give you a human-like narrative of what this means:

When you say a man's body part is disunited or disjointed, what that will referred is death. Maybe the hand is somewhere else, the head is severed, the leg is broken, the eyes removed etc. That is a body disjointed. Hence it referred to death, maim or sick body.

But we know that the body of Christ is living and alive, fully nourished by the head. We have a head that is in full control of the body, preserving it till the end.

---

So, What Does It Mean When People Refer To The Divisions Among The Assemblies and Denominations.

You will firstly need to read 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Romans 12:4-7 .

Whenever division or participation is referred to in the body, it speaks about the activities, administration and conducts of the members.

Referring to the human body i mentioned earlier. If the right hand chose to pick a phone and the right hand chose to pick plate, or the eyes says i cant help the hand to pick.... You will call this division as per the conduct not the body in itself, the body is still intact and preserved.

So, what you see arising as denominations today are due to these. The administration of the body, the activities of the body will be seen in men and handled to men by the HEAD.

Ephes 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

These are authorities for the assembly administration. This is what many see and called the body as divided.

Observe, verse 13 the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
The unity there refers to the knowledge of the Son of God. So, it speaks about how we conduct ourselves, the activities which are driven by knowledge, hence verse 14

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,

That means, the knowledge will be perfected by doctrine, teaching, training and edifying of the members.

So, the reason for differences in administration and conducts is due doctrine.

---

DOES THE DIFFERENCE IN DOCTRINE A NEW THING TO THE CHURCH?

Looking at the history of the church, you will agree that differences in doctrine and conducts have been even from the days of the Apostles.

- Peter/Other Apostles, Peter/Paul, Barnabas/Paul, Jews/Hellenist, Corinthians church etc.
- In Epistles, Paul taught about it, John spoke about it, Peter same.

We have such in history. The difference is that they were able to resolved the differences due to the size and structure at hand. You cant say that today due to the spread of the gospel. Hence even though administration is stratified, we will still have pockets of differences due to interpretation. This leads to our conducts and activities in the body. This is what you referred to as mode of worship etc. They are borne from the differences in doctrine not division in the body.

So, when we speak about the differences in the body, it shouldnt be taken as a disjointed body. Christ is able to and is the one nourishing, developing and keeping his body. His control is intact and he is able to present us blameless and spotless.

Lastly, we trust God, that the members of the body will attain the unity in doctrine unto the knowledge of the Son only. Christ only be preached and exalted in his church.

Good morning all,

@DappaD, Maximus69, TATIME, Janosky,

I am surprised at the energy level here and the arguments ongoing.

I am surprised the more that you who claimed you arent here to argue when i asked you to prove your convictions are now dishing out defence and cases to support your arguments.

You said, i like arguments, isnt that deceptive and sentimental now? Since PAGE 32-33 of this thread, you have avoided to discuss what i raised with you but stylishly continue in arguing and avoiding the question. This is PAGE 89 now and you still have energy in you to argue.

Since the energy level have risen again, and you all have the abilities to argue and defend your theology now, I am going to reiterate my questions again.

---

ON ISSUE OF TRINITY AND JESUS DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

I asked.

1. On The History of The Church

If the doctrine of Jesus is an Angel is not false doctrine that found itself into the church over the later years, show me, quote, state any text from anyone one from the early church (after the apostles), in the 1st/2nd Century that preach, wrote or assert that Jesus is an angel. There are many texts and 1st/2nd century Christians who wrote otherwise.

Let us have a text to support your history first.


2. On Bible Doctrine/Explanation

Show us any text in the scriptures that said JESUS IS AN ANGEL. Any text. The last time, you all said we should juxtapose scriptures for you, is that not what you refused from those who preached trinity?


See one of your apology below.

1 Thess 4:16
16 For the[b] Lord himself shall descend[/b] from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

THE VERSE: Because the Lord is mentioned, and spoke about descending WITH the voice of the archangel,
YOUR CONCLUSION: Then Jesus must be angel Michael because of the voice of arch angel.

Reason that well, does this sound serious to you, even in literal application.


Someone explaining trinity gave you this scriptures below.

Isa 9:6
...And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

HIS ARGUMENT/CONCLUSION: Since Jesus is called Mighty God, Everlasting Father at least, those refer to God. Hence Jesus is presented as God here.

Can you think of a mind that rejected this argument of MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER but supported the first argument that uses just VOICE OF AN ANGEL?.

Like i told you, the one teaching JESUS AS GOD has more scriptural backing and support than the one who claim JESUS AS ANGEL.

---

Therefore, i will ask again, present to me:

1. History of early church writings that teaches Christ as angel (at least these men are closer to the Apostle's time, some of them were taught by the Apostles and error will be at the minimum.

2. Scriptural evidence that stated that Jesus is an Angel. Not twisting or manipulation of scriptures.

NOTE:
And it will be dishonest to start shouting "dont quote me again", "you like arguing", "you are not ready to learn etc". All these are dishonesty and deceptions as you cant ask to be spared after getting into the boxing ring without gloves.

And mind you, i quote others below as they are already part of this discuss.

solite3, Peacefullove, DrLiveLogic, Rozz

Myer:


Good observation. However I must ask, Do you mean there is no one in this generation that has exhibited the requisite patience, desire and spiritual knowledge to achieve the biblical manifestations?

Truth be told, we only keep making excuses for God and the bible.
In fact studying the bible personally one observes the disconnect between what the bible teaches and the realities of what we see in our churches today. We only have conflicting exegesis trying to explain it away.

Catholics praying through Holy Mary and lost saints. (Unscriptural).

Pentecostals speaking diverse tongues yet not one with the gift of interpretation. In fact speaking of tongues is taught in some churches.

The Holy Spirit is meant to teach and empower, yet No Power manifestations, no healing, no genuine miracles. Several Christians and Pastor keep dying to COVID-19 and other ailments.

The Love of money is exalted beyond heavens. Most churches are simply fund-raising avenues for the pastors ego and ostentatious lifestyle. (No surprise Oyedepo and Oyakhilome have been lamenting the lock-down all over their online platforms).

There's so much division in the body of Christ, yet every GO claims God sent them. it makes one wonder if God is not an author of confusion.

What then makes Christianity different from any other religion claiming to be the true religion?

Baba, you don come again.

No single division in the body Sir. The body is preserved by the head.

I also will point out to you again as I have before, that true exegesis don't explain away the scriptures or God. True exegesis reveals the true intent of the scriptures which is God's mind.

Always know this.
Whenever two persons teach or explain the scriptures in contradiction, it is either one of them is wrong or both but not the scriptures.

Trust you are good.

mrsteel:

People insult u because u are a hypocrite!
You claim to be a preacher, but always take photos of your breast and nyansh? Are u in any way trying to mock God?

I truly don't think this is needed or polite Sir.
Your judgement is based on assumptions and it is proper to always avoid such.

There are many hypocrite in suit and tie, same in long gown with full head gear. Yet there are dedicated and sincere ministers of the gospel in mini skirts resulting from lack of proper teaching and counseling Sir.

It's safer to always assume the later and correct in simplicity of judgement so that counsel can be received without strife.
At least non of us will like out motives to be judged wrongly.

Good morning.

jamesid29:

I'm glad we landed on the same page sir.
But I'll like to offer one last comment: Using the end to justify the means is a slippery slope, especially when it comes to exegesis. Something we all(myself included) have to be mindful of.

Have a good one sir and enjoy your weekend.

Okay Sir.

Well, I see no need in further scrutiny of the means since the end already affirmed the core essence of the scriptures and it's application especially in this case at hand.

The gradient in this case can be a function of depth of scriptural exegesis from both parties but not of deviation from the same.

Hence exchanging depth in this case may not be a necessary tool in an open forum such as this where we have high possibilities of open distractions than open learning.

Same wishes Sir
Have a good day

JMAN05:


Yes. That's the way it is in my interlinear too, but it all has the same meaning. Check the strong number. That's the point.



We talking grammatically now. From Greek grammar no definite article should be added to that "spirit". Translations add it cos of doctrinal bias. It is not there nor does Greek grammar suggest that it should be there. I have also gone forward to show instances of where the same Greek word occured in a translation where "the" was not added. Translators add it because of their personal understanding/bias. I'm not saying you should not accept the way they worded it. It's your choice, but I'm coming from the position of greek grammar.

If you want us to discuss the meaning of John 3:5, that's a different thing altogether.

I feel the op misunderstood Sharp's rule. That's what all these is about.

Well, you seeing it written as pneumatos is enough for me. You may need to do further research then on why we have inflexions and there effects on surrounding text.

Also I pointed to ask for your John 3 explanation because you refered me to it (as your other points).

All the same. My view of the text is expressed in OP explanation and jamesid29 last response.

I will rather then not add anything except there are contrary view expressed again.

jamesid29:

Ok so, firstly I was just chipping in to clarify that OP's use of the Granville Sharp's rule didn't apply in his scenario as he would be altering the text and it's grammar.

As for interpreting what Jesus meant with "born of water and Spirit". I do agree with the position that Jesus was reefing of OT motifs where water and spirit/wind are used symbolically to speak of the new creation/new kingdom ( Isaiah 44:3-5 , Ezekiel 36:25-27, 37:9-10). It fits with John's theology and Jesus's initial statement in verse 3 of the need to be born "from above"(Ánōthen: rendered as born "again" as that's how Nicodemus initially understood it).

Although the traditional view of "the water" symbolising baptism does hold some merit ,especially if you look at it from a cultural standpoint, I'm not really leaning towards it.

Good one.
No different stand then.
Explanation well done in context and bible theology.

Well done Sir.

@jamesid29

On your second point.

I would fully subscribe to the OP interpretation of John 3:5 that the usage of water will refer to the spirit birth only. The context, content, explanation and bible corroboration of support this.

You can present your view on this using text of the scriptures to support your stand.

JMAN05:


I think the word that appeared there is still pneuma (strong 4151). It is from root pneo (strong 4154). Please check it up.

It doesn't go with the definite article the way you said it. That article in John 3:5 is inserted based on doctrinal understanding/bias. It shouldn't be there if we follow Greek literally/grammatically.

The word also appeared in Luke 1:80; Matt 5:3. Check up a concordance. Definite article didn't appear in those places.

The fact is that even the other points I mentioned above shows the weakness of your premise.

Firstly, you will need to recheck your interlinear well. You are likely using an interlinear that only use root words to represent all its inflexions when used. Eg. Most interlinear will use the word Theos even when it's inflexion such as Theo, Theou are used. You must use an interlinear that express the word in its original form not its root.

The word used there in its original Greek is pnuematos not pneuma. And I have clarified that earlier. You can use biblehub interlinear on this. Check their website and read the interlinear for John 3:5. That said.

Secondly the other points you raised are doctrinal and looking at John 3:5 contextually, lexically and exegetically, you are likely not correct and I will subscribe to the OP interpretation.

The water is not a core discussion but refer to the spirit in that verse. Hence born of water will refer to the regeneration and newness by the spirit.