₦airaland Forum

DappaD! DappaD!!

DappaD:
Aren’t you formerly hoopernikao the man who was disturbing my mentions around this time last year because I said Jesus was the archangel Michael? Maybe haddeylium was right—when people hear the word ‘angel’, they think it refers to weak and frail babies with cute wings and all LOL. One nairalander once, by the name of Ima.ge123 even claimed that humans were stronger than angels because of that sort of misguided reasoning you also have. 2Peter 2:11



Are you saying that Jesus is NOT the person referred to in Malachi 3:1b and Isaiah 42:1?



Well, Jesus exists in Job 2:1 because he was a Son of God before he was sent to the earth. John 3:16
Because it is either he wasn’t there or he never had a prehuman existence which would be a violation of Micah 5:2 anyway.



I saw how you stylishly added God to the equation because you know somebody will come at you with Jesus being the Son of God LOL. So where did God refer to himself as the son of himself in the Bible please?



So it’s either Jesus did not have a prehuman existence which is a violation of Micah 5:2, John 8:23 or maybe he did have a prehuman existence, but he wasn’t the Son of God while in heaven?



I would have said I expected better from you as per the double standards but I guess I would be wrong because for a man basing his understanding of the nature of God from what pagans gathered around to discuss in the council of Nicea says a lot about someone telling another to treat God’s word as inspired.

enilove:
How can a grown up man remain a babe ? Is that not an abomination ?

As for me , I am no longer a baby to my mother I am her son . Even in Christ Jesus , I am no longer a baby but a son .
But you are the one calling yourself a babe .

When Adam was created , was he created as a baby or as an adult ?

Jesus was never created as a baby by God but as an Almighty God like his Father in heaven.

Since you are a baby Christian I will tell you the Position Jesus holds and will hold for ever; THE POSITION IS THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD HIS FATHER surrounded by Twenty Four Elders and the Spirits of God and Angels bowing to him and his Father with songs :


Revelation 3:21-22 KJV
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
[22] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Enilove says 2 Almighty Gods ,( Jesus Christ & his Father) exists.

Revelation 3:21-22, according to Enilove,
One of the Almighty God is calling the other Almighty God "my Father"
(The same FALSE claim of that so-called "Pastor/Teacher"


Trinity shege !!!!

MaxInDHouse:
DappaD! DappaD!!

Good evening bro.

haddeylium:
You're hungry for knowledge, but you need to have the right attitude to learn.
To your question.
Festofost, it is not uncommon that people have more than a personal name in the Bible.
Only the names of two of God’s faithful angels (Malak:Messenger) appear in the Bible, Michael, and Gabriel others who appeared as messengers to men declined to give their names when asked.
While those two angels are mentioned by name, only Michael, is called the Archangel. (Judges 13:18), (Genesis 32:29)
© Apart from Michael, No Archangel is mentioned in the Bible.And the term Archangel was never used in plural to show shows that there only exist only An Archangel.
Michael is described as “the” archangel, implying that he alone bears that designation. So, Jehovah has delegated only one chief angel with authority over the other angels.
©Another individual spoken as having angels subject to his command is Jesus Christ. (Matthew 13:41
The apostle Paul spoke of “the Lord Jesus” and “his” powerful angels(Messenger).
But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels (2 Thess1:7 )
Jesus is not just Angel but an Archangel in heaven.


The apostle Paul prophesied:
“The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” (1 Thes 4:16)
Jesus here, is being described as God’s Messianic King and it says he speaks with “an archangel’s voice.”
Simple and straight.
You might want to say he borrowed the 'Archangel's voice'

The Bible has already made it clear that it's Jesus' voice of command that will resurrect the dead
The hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.”​—Joh 5:26-29.
Just as how 'A roar' belongs to 'A lion' same way an 'Archangel's voice' belongs to 'Archangel'.
The Scriptures point to the resurrected Jesus Christ as the chief of all angels—Michael the archangel.
Thank you

I for one don’t think hupernikao is concerned with whether Jesus is an archangel or not. To him, Jesus can be anything you want but just agree with him that he is God or else he writes long epistles quoting you mercilessly. Just let him explain, if Jesus is God, why he would be using an archangel’s voice to raise the dead as if God doesn’t have his own voice? Isaiah 6:8

DappaD:
Are you saying that Jesus is NOT the person referred to in Malachi 3:1b and Isaiah 42:1?

hupernikao:
When you read the whole of Malachi and then read Matthew you will know that Mal wasnt referring to Jesus as the messenger but John. That is obvious. So a proper reading is important not a pocket interpretation of the scriptures which wont give a true picture.

He will get you tired with his jumbo jumbo
First, he asserted that the in the whole book of Malachi, none referred to Jesus as the Messenger .
I show him the send messenger in the b part.
He came up with a story of Elijah and then Jesus but not as messenger per say
wahala no too much

DappaD:
I for one don’t think hupernikao is concerned with whether Jesus is an archangel or not. To him, Jesus can be anything you want but just agree with him that he is God or else he writes long epistles quoting you mercilessly. Just let him explain, if Jesus is God, why he would be using an archangel’s voice to raise the dead as if God doesn’t have his own voice? Isaiah 6:8

©Jesus stood for the salvation of God's people and that's exactly what Michael also reportedly did! Isaiah 11:10 compare to Daniel 12:1

©Out of those in the spirit realms only Jesus is said to be a special son of God and Michael is said to be the Archangel while all other angels are also God's sons! John 3:16 compare to Jude 9

©Out of all those living in the spirit realms only Jesus is said to have his angels just as only Michael is said to have his angels! Matthew 13:41, 25:31 compare to Revelations 12:7

©Jesus is referred to as the Great Prince who will bring about global peace just as Michael is also called the great Prince! Isaiah 9:6 compare to Daniel 12:1

© Jesus will use the voice of the Archangel not any other voice for that matter {1Thessalonians 4:16} and somehow Michael happens to be the Archangel!

© Michael and Gabriel are the only two angels whose names were mentioned in the Bible and somehow Michael was nowhere to be found when God has transformed His only begotten son into an embryo in the womb of Mary, so that Gabriel began featuring instead of Michael!

Please whoever wants to dispute that the Bible isn't talking about the same person should tell me why so much coincidences!

haddeylium:
He will get you tired with his jumbo jumbo
First, he asserted that the in the whole book of Malachi, none referred to Jesus as the Messiah
I show him the send messenger in the b part.
He came up with a story of Elijah and then Jesus but not as messenger per say
wahala no too much

Ha! It’s obvious Malachi 3:1 is referring not to one but two distinct persons so hupernikao must be mixing things up. For instance, which covenant did John the Baptist establish? Was it not Jesus Christ who came as a result of the Abrahamic covenant(Luke 1:72) and later became the mediator of the new covenant? Luke 22:28-30, 1Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15

Was it not the messenger of the covenant who Jehovah said would cleanse the temple on his arrival? Malachi 3:2-4
Which temple did John the Baptist cleanse on his arrival? Wasn’t he commissioned to only prepare the hearts of the Jews? Malachi 4:5,6; Luke 1:17, 3:4-6
Was it not Jesus who cleansed the temple at least 2times while on earth? Matthew 21:12, John 2:13-16
I really don’t think hupernikao is concerned about the facts here even if you show from the Scriptures how issues surrounding the topic are related. What was he saying concerning Isaiah 42:1?

MaxInDHouse:
I always tell trinitarians:

There will never be any concrete agreement on mode of worship within trinitarians! Luke 11:23

So if JWs say Jesus is Archangel Michael, let them argue from now till tomorrow the truth remains that it's only the Organization that believe Jesus is Michael can produce the FRUIT of God's Holy Spirit in their midst, then there's no need dragging issues with any of them!

Whoever wants to know the secret of the LOVE, JOY and PEACE in our gathering should come and learn, anyone who feels he knows better is free to pitch his tent elsewhere!

Exactly!
Jesus as Michael the chief angel is even our secondary point in our understanding of the scriptures.
Disagree with Jesus as being Michael in his heavenly role, you will still have the same teaching, beliefs 'Peace, love and Joy ' among Jehovah's witnesses.

Remove 'Diety of Jesus' among them and the already divided churchgoers will collapse.
He just getting worked up over nothing when their knowledge about Jesus identity is not working anything good or producing fruits among them.
Even, part of his his trinitarian belief that Jesus is an Archangel but that knowledge is useless anyway.

Let just crown the clown

MaxInDHouse:
©Jesus stood for the salvation of God's people and that's exactly what Michael also reportedly did! Isaiah 11:10 compare to Daniel 12:1

©Out of those in the spirit realms only Jesus is said to be a special son of God and Michael is said to be the Archangel while all other angels are also God's sons! John 3:16 compare to Jude 9

©Out of all those living in the spirit realms only Jesus is said to have his angels just as only Michael is said to have his angels! Matthew 13:41, 25:31 compare to Revelations 12:7

©Jesus is referred to as the Great Prince who will bring about global peace just as Michael is also called the great Prince! Isaiah 9:6 compare to Daniel 12:1

© Jesus will use the voice of the Archangel not any other voice for that matter {1Thessalonians 4:16} and somehow Michael happens to be the Archangel!

© Michael and Gabriel are the only two angels whose names were mentioned in the Bible and somehow Michael was nowhere to be found when God has transformed His only begotten son into an embryo in the womb of Mary, so that Gabriel began featuring instead of Michael!

Please whoever wants to dispute that the Bible isn't talking about the same person should tell me why so much coincidences!

Also, @Genesis 3:15 who is the seed of the woman that will defeat the serpent?

Revelation 12:7-9 & 1 John 3:8, who defeated
the serpent in fulfilment of Genesis 3:15?

1 Thess 4:16 & John 5:28-29, whose voice raises the dead?

Jesus christ is archangel Michael.
Confirmento!

Walahi Talahi i would have become an atheist by now if not because i saw all the promises of God regarding the aftermath of Christi's teachings amongst JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES!

Let anyone PRESENT a better performing group that's yielding the fruit of God's Holy Spirit apart from the one and only group that knows the true IDENTITY of Jesus (Archangel Michael)

Janosky:
Also, @Genesis 3:15 who is the seed of the woman that will defeat the serpent?
Revelation 12:7-9 & 1 John 3:8, who defeated
the serpent in fulfilment of Genesis 3:15?
1 Thess 4:16 & John 5:28-29, whose voice raises the dead?
Jesus christ is archangel Michael.
Confirmento!

The funny thing about misinformed Churchgoers is how they are excited each time they have the opportunity to debate with JWs but whenever it comes to their fellow Churchgoers it's always.

ISU ATA YAN-AN YAN-AN

YAM PEPPER SCATTER SCATTER!

Despite all their hypocritical display of affection, they can't come up with one line of thought! Luke 11:23

DappaD:
Good evening bro.

DappaD:
Ha! It’s obvious Malachi 3:1 is referring not to one but two distinct persons so hupernikao must be mixing things up. For instance, which covenant did John the Baptist establish? Was it not Jesus Christ who came as a result of the Abrahamic covenant(Luke 1:72) and later became the mediator of the new covenant? Luke 22:28-30, 1Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15

Was it not the messenger of the covenant who Jehovah said would cleanse the temple on his arrival? Malachi 3:2-4
Which temple did John the Baptist cleanse on his arrival? Wasn’t he commissioned to only prepare the hearts of the Jews? Malachi 4:5,6; Luke 1:17, 3:4-6
Was it not Jesus who cleansed the temple at least 2times while on earth? Matthew 21:12, John 2:13-16
I really don’t think hupernikao is concerned about the facts here even if you show from the Scriptures how issues surrounding the topic are related. What was he saying concerning Isaiah 42:1?

Your observation above doesn't reflect my view on Mal 3.

This is my response to Mal 3 to the person you quoted. Read it well then you can respond base on my view.

You are mixing a lot up when you are explaining. This is the reason i like separating issues.
You moved from Mal to Isa without properly explaining Malachi.

Explanation of the Scriptures cannot be paraphrased. You must explain where your interpretation is coming from.

---

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

1. The first messenger I will send my messenger

It was clear that he was speaking about John the Baptist. Notice, your acceptance of John (human, man) as a messenger, not as preexistence. You didnt argue this. You never said John existed as one angel somewhere before. Even though, here John was yet to be born, yet you know he was speaking about a man not a preexisting servant. A man to be born as servant.


2. The Lord, messenger of the covenant

Now a second personality. The Lord. Is Malachi calling his servant in preexistence or in humanity?

Notice his description and activities.
- whom ye seek (Israel isnt seeking an angel but a deliverer, a man as Moses, human.
- shall suddenly come to his temple (temple, is earthly, this refers to his earthly mission)


The personality is described in men's activities not in preexistence. This is referring to Christ work on earth. It is a prophecy of his humanity and not preexistence. You missed it when referring to Christ preexistence as servant here. Malachi never did.
This servanthood is his function on earth as man (messenger of covenant).

Please, look at it well and reread.
That is the proper context of Malachi.

Likewise Isa 42 you quoted was referring to a man. Please read full context.

Underlined!

AkinwaleJJ:
The funny thing about misinformed Churchgoers is how they are excited each time they have the opportunity to debate with JWs but whenever it comes to their fellow Churchgoers it's always.

ISU ATA YAN-AN YAN-AN

YAM PEPPER SCATTER SCATTER!

Despite all their hypocritical display of affection, they can't come up with one line of thought! Luke 11:23

DappaD:
Yes, after the millennial rule of Christ, all humans living on earth would be completely free from sin(Revelation 22:1,2) and hence be called Jehovah’s sons and daughters. Romans 8:21

What so amazing about this is how you just keep jumping my point

So you mean John 1:12-13 was about After millennial rule of Christ and not people who DID RECEIVE HIM as scripture says?

But for now, we’re still children of wrath(Romans 5:12) until we pass the final test. Revelation 20:1-3

Of course, I know all Jws are children of wrath because they belong to their father the Devil

And the born again also are still children of wrath for now

My question is still pending since two days now:

That was the reason I quoted that Matt 5 to show you that the criteria of inherit earth was to be MEEK. Do you say those who will rule with Jesus aren't MEEK?

hupernikao:
Your observation above doesn't reflect my view on Mal 3.
This is my response to Mal 3 to the person you quoted. Read it well then you can respond base on my view.

After Jesus was resurrected to heaven, why do we read in Acts 3:13(NKJV) that he was still being called a Servant? Or is Jesus still a man in heaven?

Emusan:
What so amazing about this is how you just keep jumping my point
So you mean John 1:12-13 was about After millennial rule of Christ and not people who DID RECEIVE HIM as scripture says?
Of course, I know all Jws are children of wrath because they belong to their father the Devil
And the born again also are still children of wrath for now
That was the reason I quoted that Matt 5 to show you that the criteria of inherit earth was to be MEEK. Do you say those who will rule with Jesus aren't MEEK?

You’re not making any point. I literally told you that Jehovah will have adopted spirit sons in heaven(Romans 8:16) provided they remain faithful to death(Hebrews 3:14) and human sons and daughters on earth(Romans 8:21) provided they remain faithful after the millennial rule of Christ. Revelation 20:1-3
Emusan, you no get talk for mouth.

DappaD:
I for one don’t think hupernikao is concerned with whether Jesus is an archangel or not. To him, Jesus can be anything you want but just agree with him that he is God or else he writes long epistles quoting you mercilessly. Just let him explain, if Jesus is God, why he would be using an archangel’s voice to raise the dead as if God doesn’t have his own voice? Isaiah 6:8

You guys won't seize to amaze me with your Bible misinterpretation. It's like there is a special goggle you use to be seeing this revelation and Jesus in OT text. Seeing Jesus in Isaiah 6:8 will require a deep imagination of self inspiration.

Where did you see Jesus in Isaiah 6:8 . What are you reading Sir.

---

Well don't forget this as I told your colleague,
That Jesus is a name of a man, stop seeing him in your spiritual realm before his birth. You can't find him there, who you find is God. Don't read Isaiah and be seeing Jesus, a man born thousands of years later except it is a prophecy of the future. Christ preexistence is not in angel, is not in view of all these your revelation and misstext.

You need to read the bible the way it is inspired, that is when you will have a proper understanding of Christ.

---

Jesus uses voice of archangel? Please reread that text well. Is it soprano or alto. Lol.

Just ensure this is clear. That when you say Jesus, you are refering to a man in the flesh, human, subject to like passion. He died, like man, rose as man. This is the first point of your error to correct.

hupernikao:
You guys won't seize to amaze me with your Bible misinterpretation. It's like there is a special goggle you use to be seeing this revelation and Jesus in OT text. Seeing Jesus in Isaiah 6:8 will require a deep imagination of self inspiration.
Where did you see Jesus in Isaiah 6:8 . What are you reading Sir.

---

Well don't forget this as I told your colleague,
That Jesus is a name of a man, stop seeing him in your spiritual realm before his birth. You can't find him there, who you find is God. Don't read Isaiah and be seeing Jesus, a man born thousands of years later except it is a prophecy of the future. Christ preexistence is not in angel, is not in view of all these your revelation and misstext.
You need to read the bible the way it is inspired, that is when you will have a proper understanding of Christ.

---

Jesus uses voice of archangel? Please reread that text well. Is it soprano or alto. Lol.
Just ensure this is clear. That when you say Jesus, you are refering to a man in the flesh, human, subject to like passion. He died, like man, rose as man. This is the first point of your error to correct.

Isaiah 6:8 shows that Jehovah God has his own voice so if he’s equal to Jesus as you claim, then he wouldn’t need to borrow the voice of an archangel to raise the dead as 1Thessalonians 4:16 put it.
Don’t misunderstand me.

hupernikao:
Your observation above doesn't reflect my view on Mal 3.
This is my response to Mal 3 to the person you quoted. Read it well then you can respond base on my view.

Are you also saying that Isaiah 42:1 doesn’t refer to Jesus Christ?

MaxInDHouse:
©Jesus stood for the salvation of God's people and that's exactly what Michael also reportedly did! Isaiah 11:10 compare to Daniel 12:1

©Out of those in the spirit realms only Jesus is said to be a special son of God and Michael is said to be the Archangel while all other angels are also God's sons! John 3:16 compare to Jude 9

©Out of all those living in the spirit realms only Jesus is said to have his angels just as only Michael is said to have his angels! Matthew 13:41, 25:31 compare to Revelations 12:7

©Jesus is referred to as the Great Prince who will bring about global peace just as Michael is also called the great Prince! Isaiah 9:6 compare to Daniel 12:1

© Jesus will use the voice of the Archangel not any other voice for that matter {1Thessalonians 4:16} and somehow Michael happens to be the Archangel!

© Michael and Gabriel are the only two angels whose names were mentioned in the Bible and somehow Michael was nowhere to be found when God has transformed His only begotten son into an embryo in the womb of Mary, so that Gabriel began featuring instead of Michael!

Please whoever wants to dispute that the Bible isn't talking about the same person should tell me why so much coincidences!

Bros, the reason for your coincidence is that you are reading the scriptures the wrong way. You already have a premonition of seeing Jesus in Michael.

Jesus is a man, on earth. Born, grew. There was no You will have to take this fundamental facts to start with understanding all the texts you wrongly quote above.

Almost all of these scriptures you quoted aren't refering to Jesus, you were the one mentioning Jesus there. And if I asked you to point to where Jesus is written there, you will ask me to go and get your revelation goggle in the inspiration market too.

haddeylium:
He will get you tired with his jumbo jumbo
First, he asserted that the in the whole book of Malachi, none referred to Jesus as the Messenger .
I show him the send messenger in the b part.
He came up with a story of Elijah and then Jesus but not as messenger per say
wahala no too much

I am beginning to feel you aren't ready to be honest here.

Where exactly did you show me Jesus (your angel) in Malachi. How are you reading the Bible. In Malachi? Jesus as angel? You need to really listen to yourself.

You see, when you are presented with the scriptures and you aren't ready to accept and also add dishonesty to it, it has consequences.

But I will still admonish you like I did. Malachi never spoke about Jesus "in the spirit" as you put it. It spoke about a man, Jesus.

In Malachi 3
John messenger is a man.
Jesus messenger is a man too

That is Malachi context. Please help yourself read scriptures properly.

DappaD:
Aren’t you formerly hoopernikao the man who was disturbing my mentions around this time last year because I said Jesus was the archangel Michael? Maybe haddeylium was right—when people hear the word ‘angel’, they think it refers to weak and frail babies with cute wings and all LOL. One nairalander once, by the name of Ima.ge123 even claimed that humans were stronger than angels because of that sort of misguided reasoning you also have. 2Peter 2:11



Are you saying that Jesus is NOT the person referred to in Malachi 3:1b and Isaiah 42:1?



Well, Jesus exists in Job 2:1 because he was a Son of God before he was sent to the earth. John 3:16
Because it is either he wasn’t there or he never had a prehuman existence which would be a violation of Micah 5:2 anyway.



I saw how you stylishly added God to the equation because you know somebody will come at you with Jesus being the Son of God LOL. So where did God refer to himself as the son of himself in the Bible please?



So it’s either Jesus did not have a prehuman existence which is a violation of Micah 5:2, John 8:23 or maybe he did have a prehuman existence, but he wasn’t the Son of God while in heaven?



I would have said I expected better from you as per the double standards but I guess I would be wrong because for a man basing his understanding of the nature of God from what pagans gathered around to discuss in the council of Nicea says a lot about someone telling another to treat God’s word as inspired.

Well, to start with the user hupernikao existed even before hoopernikao and I am quite sure that it does exist even before you register your user Dappa. So hupernikao is not a copy, it's the copy.


Secondly.
The facts that you don't even address what you were pointed to shows a big gap in having your discussion.

All texts of the scriptures you used are poorly quoted and interpreted. Lifting text out of its surrounding texts is common with you,

---

Now remove your self inspired revelation goggle in your eyes and read/respond my questions below.

1. Point to where you see Jesus in Job 2:1

On another day the angels[a](A) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them(B) to present himself before him

Satan was mentioned. Tell me the man, Jesus there.

2. And more importantly, show me a text that called Jesus the son of God and not refering to his earthly birth.

How you even say Jesus and can't phantom it that you are speaking about a man in the flesh amazes me. A name giving at birth. This is a fundamental flaw.

Jesus was never a son until birth. He became a son for you, for me for the world to partake in our humanity. That sonship is humanity. So, stop saying Jesus when explaining visions of heaven in the OT, else it's a prophecy for the future. Hence Mal 3, Isa 42, is refering to a man, Jesus. Not an angel in heaven.

hupernikao:
Well, to start with the user hupernikao existed even before hoopernikao and I am quite sure that it does exist even before you register your user Dappa. So hupernikao is not a copy, it's the copy.
Secondly.
The facts that you don't even address what you were pointed to shows a big gap in having your discussion.
All texts of the scriptures you used are poorly quoted and interpreted. Lifting text out of its surrounding texts is common with you,

---

Now remove your self inspired revelation goggle in your eyes and read/respond my questions below.
1. Point to where you see Jesus in Job 2:1
On another day the angels[a](A) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them(B) to present himself before him
Satan was mentioned. Tell me the man, Jesus there.
2. And more importantly, show me a text that called Jesus the son of God and not refering to his earthly birth.
How you even say Jesus and can't phantom it that you are speaking about a man in the flesh amazes me. A name giving at birth. This is a fundamental flaw.
Jesus was never a son until birth. He became a son for you, for me for the world to partake in our humanity. That sonship is humanity. So, stop saying Jesus when explaining visions of heaven in the OT, else it's a prophecy for the future. Hence Mal 3, Isa 42, is refering to a man, Jesus. Not an angel in heaven.

Okay. This is what Revelation 2:18 has to say about your stand because the statement was made more than 60 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ:

“And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the
Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;” KJV

Since you claim that Jesus’ sonship is only restricted to his earthly life, why is Jesus still calling himself the Son of God after so many years that he returned to heaven? Is he still a human being in heaven? At least, if he is no longer the Son of God, then he should have referred to himself as something else but alas, Revelation 2:18 is out there for all to see.

haddeylium:
You're hungry for knowledge, but you need to have the right attitude to learn.
To your question.

Festofost, it is not uncommon that people have more than a personal name in the Bible.
Only the names of two of God’s faithful angels (Malak:Messenger) appear in the Bible, Michael, and Gabriel others who appeared as messengers to men declined to give their names when asked.
While those two angels are mentioned by name, only Michael, is called the Archangel. (Judges 13:18), (Genesis 32:29)

© Apart from Michael, No Archangel is mentioned in the Bible.And the term Archangel was never used in plural to show shows that there only exist only An Archangel.
Michael is described as “the” archangel, implying that he alone bears that designation. So, Jehovah has delegated only one chief angel with authority over the other angels.

©Another individual spoken as having angels subject to his command is Jesus Christ. (Matthew 13:41

You aren't yet to study the scriptures as a book.

Only Michael as archangel?
This error alone flaws all your other explanation, hence I won't address them. Go back and do your proper study of angels in the bible.


Daniel 10:13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, ONE OF the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

One (echad). One among others.
Chief (arch). A leader. One of the first. The commander.

So go and read properly before you start discussing about angels. It's clear you haven't done your homework well.


I guess also when Satan was referred to having is own angels, he must be have translated to Michael then.

Revelation 12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

I guess Michael is fighting Michael.


God was spoken of as "God and his angels". I guess God changed to Michael since its only Michael that command angels.

So, since you are interpreting bible as 1+1=2 then

Michael is Michael
Jesus is Michael
God is Michael
Satan is Michael

Since they were all referred as having their angels. This is your line of thought with you will still denied as select the one that suit you.


Like I told you, your issues is that you read bible to suit your imagination. Hence neglecting the language and events surrounding the text makes you a poor reader. Correct this.

Janosky:
Bros, continue DECEIVING yourself & LYING


Malachi 3:1
1599 Geneva Bible
3 1 Of the messenger of the Lord, John Baptist, and of Christ’s office.

1 Behold, I will send my [a]messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord whom ye seek, shall speedily come to his Temple: even the [c]messenger of the Covenant, whom ye desire: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.


Footnotes
a. Malachi 3:1 This is meant of John Baptist, as
Christ expoundeth it, Luke 7:27.
b. Malachi 3:1 Meaning, Messiah, Ps. 40:1, 7;
Dan. 9:17, 25.
c. Malachi 3:1 That is, Christ, by whom the covenant was made and ratified, who is called the Angel or messenger of the covenant, because he reconcileth us to his father and is Lord or king, because he hath the government of his Church."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Malachi 3:1
Amplified Bible
The Purifier
3 “Behold, I am going to send My [a]messenger, and he will prepare and clear the way before Me. And the Lord [the Messiah], whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; the [b]Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, [/b]behold, He is coming,” says the Lord of hosts.(A)


Footnotes
a.Malachi 3:1 This is fulfilled in John the Baptist (Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:76).

[b]b.Malachi 3:1 The Messiah as God’s representative will confirm and establish the covenant (see Is 42:6).
++++++++++++++++++
Jesus is the messenger/Angel of the covenant , Geneva Bible talk am since 1599 & Amplified Bible, your Trinity mentors confirm it.

As long as you go do that assignment wey Yahweh send you, whether you are human being or spiritual being, you are Yahweh's angel doing Yahweh's command.

Bros, go & quarrel with your Trinity mentors
for exposure of your fallacies.

This is incoherent.

When you start discussing coherent, I wi seek to respond to you.

DappaD:
You’re not making any point.

Of course, I don't expect my post to make any sense to you.

I literally told you that Jehovah will have adopted spirit sons in heaven(Romans 8:16) provided they remain faithful to death(Hebrews 3:14)

I like the way you said, ***"You literally..."*** which means it's your personal view not that of the Holy Word of God.

and human sons and daughters on earth(Romans 8:21) provided they remain faithful after the millennial rule of Christ. Revelation 20:1-3

And the reason I quoted John 1:12-13 that scripture actually says ALL WHO BELIEVE AND RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST ARE BORN AGAIN

Which you haven't be able to prove false but just jumping up and down.

Emusan, you no get talk for mouth.

Dappad, you that has talk for mouth, why twisting the scripture?

DappaD:
Okay. This is what Revelation 2:18 has to say about your stand because the statement was made more than 60 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ:

“And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the
Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;” KJV

Since you claim that Jesus’ sonship is only restricted to his earthly life, why is Jesus still calling himself the Son of God after so many years that he returned to heaven? Is he still a human being in heaven? At least, if he is no longer the Son of God, then he should have referred to himself as something else but alas, Revelation 2:18 is out there for all to see.

You need to pay attention

Man died for man, man rose, man sit at the right hand of God. The man Jesus.

1 Tim 2: 5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

The man Jesus, is the son of God and remain the son forever for your sake and mine. That is the beauty of salvation.


God's dominion and authority is for man, it's man that sit in that authority today, the man Jesus. The reason we are seated with him.

God's dominion promise even from Genesis is for man. Why then will it be hard for you to see that, the man Jesus, is the model son for all men. The reason he is today your brother, you are joint heir with a man, not with an angel.

Jesus, is man, man, man,.....
Son of God, died, buried, glorified as man.

The same reason we believe in the resurrection of our mortal body on the last day and changed to Man (a new man) not to angels because we saw it in Jesus.

In Jesus man, he showed us that man can live with God forever, and have God's dominion forever, hence this is our hope.

hupernikao:
You need to pay attention
Man died for man, man rose,
[highlight]man sit at the right hand of God.The man Jesus.
1 Tim 2: 5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
The man Jesus, is the son of God and remain the son forever for your sake and mine. That is the beauty of salvation.
God's dominion and authority is for man, it's man that sit in that authority today, the man Jesus. The reason we are seated with him.
God's dominion promise even from Genesis is for man. Why then will it be hard for you to see that, the man Jesus, is the model son for all men. The reason he is today your brother, you are joint heir with a man, not with an angel.
Jesus, is man, man, man,.....
Son of God, died, buried, glorified as man.
The same reason we believe in the resurrection of our mortal body on the last day and changed to Man (a new man) not to angels because we saw it in Jesus.
In Jesus man, he showed us that man can live with God forever, and have God's dominion forever, hence this is our hope.

Your goal-posts shifting techniques needs to be studied.
LOL! So you’re prepared to run mad if it means that you should accept that Jesus as subordinate to God, now I guess Revelation 2:18 put you in your place wrt your misguided notions. The scriptures say that Jesus died as a man(flesh) but rose up a spirit being(1Timothy 3:16, 1Peter 3:18) but once again you employ unscriptural views in a discussion such as this. If Jesus is still a man(flesh and blood), then that means his baptism at the River Jordan was a charade or a joke? Mark 1:9
And that he was never really born from spirit to become spirit? John 3:6
And also that he never qualified to inherit God’s Kingdom since you claim he is still human with flesh and blood. 1Corinthians 15:50

No wahala sebi Jesus is mentioned in the Bible book of Isaiah 9:6 before you concluded that he is the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace!

hupernikao:
Bros, the reason for your coincidence is that you are reading the scriptures the wrong way. You already have a premonition of seeing Jesus in Michael.
Jesus is a man, on earth. Born, grew. There was no You will have to take this fundamental facts to start with understanding all the texts you wrongly quote above.
Almost all of these scriptures you quoted aren't refering to Jesus, you were the one mentioning Jesus there. And if I asked you to point to where Jesus is written there, you will ask me to go and get your revelation goggle in the inspiration market too.

MaxInDHouse:
No wahala sebi Jesus is mentioned in the Bible book of Isaiah 9:6 before you concluded that he is the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace!

But Isaiah clearly told you "a child", "a son". That is humanity.

Note also, that we referencing or seeing Jesus (the man) in Isaiah was not by personal revelation or imagination, the scripture teaches us so.

Why?
The moment Gospel of Matthew quoted Isaiah 9 in Mathew 4, and referred to Jesus as the fulfillment, that already showed us that Isaiah was speaking about the man Jesus to be born in future.

It wasn't an imagination or implied, it was taught by Matthew.

Matthew 4:12-17
12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali—

14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:
15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.”[f]

17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

He was quoting same Isaiah 9:1-2

9 [a]Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.

Hence Vs 6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:..

That is what give new testament context to Isaiah 9. It wasn't an assumption.

He is the son and was called Wonderful...


This is the reason bible must be read and interpreted together without our imagination or self inspiration but God's inspiration.

And if God inspire an interpretation of a text today, the interpretation must see and teach the same thing the author of the text was inspired of God to write in his own day. Anything outside this is inspired imagined interpretation.

The question is where is the name 'Jesus' mentioned in that book?

hupernikao:
Almost all of these scriptures you quoted aren't refering to Jesus, you were the one mentioning Jesus there. And if I asked you to point to where Jesus is written there, you will ask me to go and get your revelation goggle in the inspiration market too.

But Isaiah clearly told you "a child", "a son". That is humanity.

Note also, that we referencing or seeing Jesus (the man) in Isaiah was not by personal revelation or imagination, the scripture teaches us so.

Why?
The moment Gospel of Matthew quoted Isaiah 9 in Mathew 4, and referred to Jesus as the fulfillment, that already showed us that Isaiah was speaking about the man Jesus to be born in future.

It wasn't an imagination or implied, it was taught by Matthew.

Matthew 4:12-17
12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali—

14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:
15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.”[f]

17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

He was quoting same Isaiah 9:1-2

9 [a]Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.

Hence Vs 6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:..

That is what give new testament context to Isaiah 9. It wasn't an assumption.

He is the son and was called Wonderful...


This is the reason bible must be read and interpreted together without our imagination or self inspiration but God's inspiration.

And if God inspire an interpretation of a text today, the interpretation must see and teach the same thing the author of the text was inspired of God to write in his own day. Anything outside this is inspired imagined interpretation.

DappaD:
Your goal-posts shifting techniques needs to be studied.
LOL! So you’re prepared to run mad if it means that you should accept that Jesus as subordinate to God, now I guess Revelation 2:18 put you in your place wrt your misguided notions. The scriptures say that Jesus died as a man(flesh) but rose up a spirit being(1Timothy 3:16, 1Peter 3:18) but once again you employ unscriptural views in a discussion such as this. If Jesus is still a man(flesh and blood), then that means his baptism at the River Jordan was a charade or a joke? Mark 1:9
And that he was never really born from spirit to become spirit? John 3:6
And also that he never qualified to inherit God’s Kingdom since you claim he is still human with flesh and blood. 1Corinthians 15:50

I will stay on the topic of your misinterpretation of Jesus as angel first. Since you are yet to still understand what the name or the person Jesus means. Nor understand the humanity of Christ. Going into his resurrection will only bring more confusion to your reading.

All texts you quoted up there has nothing to do with what the authors implied. They are your imaginations. But it's allowed, it's a stage in Bible learning. To imagine, to lift scriptures and see self revelation in the name of spirit inspired revelation.

I am sure soon you will be able to fully read the scriptures and accept it the way the authors were inspired and interpret it as such.

Pending that time, get this right in your mind and it will help your explanation of who the man Jesus is.

1. Jesus is a man born of a woman, the savior of the world.

2. Jesus wasn't the name of God, it's a name given by God to a MAN at birth, who will at last bear the authority of God.

3. When you Read OT text, stop referencing Jesus as preexisting in any form. No text for that. I know you have text that can confuse your reading. But check it well, they are mostly prophecy of the future about a MAN to be born, Jesus. Any interpretation outside this is self imagination.

4. Stop quoting verses without reading its full chapter to understand what the verse is truly saying. Read the chapter first to give meaning to a verse, then use your knowledge of other places in the scripture to interpret the verse. Don't give an independent meaning to a verse.

A verse must retain its meaning when read with its surrounding text. That is, the meaning of a verse, no matter anywhere you want to apply it, must be derived from the context of the chapter you are lifting it from.

Read the above again.



This is how your errors are seen in all verses you are quoting.
If we insert those verses back to their surrounding context and chapter and read it together in their chapter for a meaning, we won't arrive at the meaning you have been giving them when read independent from their surrounding text.
Hence not biblical.

This simple rule above is sacrosanct in Bible interpretation and save us from imagined inspiration driven by desire of self revelation.