Christian Laws

this was your claim

quote:

---

As one begins to accept the words of the Prophets, that statement has the potential to disband most all of the authenticity afforded to the Mt.Horeb tradition.

​

I'd rather trust Yeshua that Moses did not see the Father face to face, as well as Yirmiyahu, who asserts that Levitical regulations are malignant forgeries.

---

Now, what i'm saying is that the moses writings do not say that he saw God face to face. He clearly writes that it was an angel who spoke to him out of the thornbush for instance. So please explain what you are trying to say about Moses writings. And show me where in his writings you are referring to. then you will find it very difficult for the prophets wrote in symbolism more then any other writers. You cannot always read a 'plain text' reading in the books of the prophets. They are full of symbolisms.

no, they didnt replace anythying. They included the 'definite' article as it was recorded in the ancient manuscripts. You cant argue with the manuscripts. The truth is found in those writings, and as i've shown, THE GOD is shown to be different from THE WORD. These two distinct personalities are shown together in the original writings.some translators chose to exclude the definite article in john 1:1 but others chose to keep it. There is good reason for that. That definite article (ho) does appear in that exact place where they have removed it.If you knew for sure it was there, would you remove it? I dont read it personally. I do have a number of greek speaking people in my congregation who speak it very well and non of them disagree with the rendering. And from what i've learnt of the greek language about the definite article, i also agree with it being included.You tell me this. If you could read the ancient manuscripts in Greek and you recognized the definite article in John 1:1....would you keep it in your translation, or would you remove it? There is a very simple answer to this and i'll show you that the bible does indeed present other 'gods' within its pages. Not gods to be worshiped, but gods in the sense that the word god means 'mighty ones'

quote:

---

Genesis 1:26 'And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness"

---

This is the first verse that shows that God was not alone in the universe.

quote:

---

Job 38:7 "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? ...when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

---

Here we are told that there were spirit 'sons of God' who existed in the invisible heavens before the creation of our earth. Only a few of these are mentioned in the bible. Micheal the Archangel and Gabriel are two of them. Would you deny that God dwells with other godlike beings?Do you accept that spirits are godlike?
Do you agree that Angels are godlike?Do you think that is is remotely possible that these Angels were the ones to whom God is talking to in Genesis when he says 'Let US make man in OUR image'I do agree with you that there is only 'One True God' and he is the one who made all other things, however there also exists others who are clearly gods compared to us.
Satan is said to be a god, his demons are also gods, the angels are gods and Jesus is also a god.None of them are Jehovah God. He is the Almighty and all others are below him in station. Even Jesus is subject to him as is seen from this verse at 1Cor 15:27
______________________
"For [God] "subjected all things under his feet.But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28But when all things will have been subjected to him,
then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."
______
Even Paul acknowledges that all things have been subjected to Jesus WITH THE EXCEPTION of the one who appointed him to that position.If we give all honor and worship to Jesus alone, then the one to whom Jesus was directing the human race is totally being left out of the picture. His identity is being hidden. They have even gone so far as to remove his name from their bibles.Let me ask you. If what i'm saying is true, and there is a greater God then Jesus and he is Jehovah, would you continue to worship Jesus?I can tell you right now that if i'm wrong, I would be worshiping Jesus no question. but from what i've learnt of the greek definite article, they cannot be one in the same. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

purpledawn, the bible was written for ALL of mankind, the psalmists were writing under inspiritation as a means of teaching through songs. Have you never heard of a song that teach's important lessons to those who hear it.

​

The american national anthem was written a long time ago, do you assume it was only intended for those who wrote it?

---

Your rationale really amazes me. The writers of the Bible were not writing for all mankind. They wrote for their time and their audience.

quote:

---

You may need to read the context of Jeremiah 7. This is talking about 'human' sacrifices, not animal sacrifices. It seems that some Israelites had adopted this demonic practice from the cannanites.

---

Sorry, typo. It should have been 7:22.The writer of our national anthem, Francis Scott Key, wrote a poem in 1814 entitled "Defence of Fort McHenry". He wrote it for his time and for his audience. He wrote about what he'd witnessed. He didn't write it to be used as the national anthem.It wasn't made our national anthem by congressional resolution until 1931. We don't sing the whole poem either. Although I've sung the song, I've never seen the American flag at dawn after a battle. I've never watched o'er the ramparts and I've never watched bombs bursting in air. The song cratively depicts a specific incidence.The writings in the Bible were written for a specific group at a specific time. Not for the future.The writer of the psalm says "I". It is his prayer to God. It is from his life experiences. It does not support your point and neither does our national anthem.

quote:

---

You may need to read the context of Jeremiah 7. This is talking about 'human' sacrifices, not animal sacrifices. It seems that some Israelites had adopted this demonic practice from the cannanites.

---

Sorry, typo. It should have been 7:22.

quote:

---

You really would do well to read these scriptures in context.

---

I always love it when the pot calls the kettle black.

quote:

---

tell me first what civilisation noah was governed by and i will tell you what it has to do with christian laws.

---

Now we narrowed it down to Noah. You could acknowledge that the others were governed by laws.Noah was part of the civilization of his time. The Bible doesn't identify specific cities. For God to deem the population evil, there had to be standards by which to judge. Noah was found righteous in his time, among his people. Don't ask this question again.So what has this to do with the Christian laws you are unable to list?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Then explain why God told Abraham at Gen 22:18" by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice."In what way would ALL NATIONS be involved in the blessing promised to Abraham and his descendants?What was the blessing that was being promised here and how would all the nations benefit from it? Jeremiah 7:22 "For I did not speak with YOUR forefathers, nor did I command them in the day of my bringing them out from the land of Egypt concerning the matters of whole burnt offering and sacrifice"In keeping with the context of Jeremiah chpater 7, its clear that The primary thing that God wants of his people is obedience for he continues by saying.... "But this word I did express in command upon them, saying: 'Obey my voice, and I will become your God..."Obedience was more important then sacrifices. But this in no way means that the sacrifices were not instituted at Gods direction. They certainly were and sacrifices to God began long before the mosaic law did. You may recall that Able offered to God a sacrifice of greater value then Cain did.
Also Abraham 'as good as offered up Isaac' when he was tested.The important thing about the sacrifices under the mosaic system was that they were offered, not as a formal duty, but out of love and obedience to God. This is precisely why Jeremiah was told not to pray for jerusalem because the people had turned aside from God and were merely offering their sacrifices as a formal routine. perhaps you should think about the meaning of your national anthem and search for how it relates to america today. How about the 4th of July celebrations...is there any real reason to continue to celebrate something that related to a generation from a long time ago? to help you out a bit, Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Isaac etc lived under a 'Patriarchal' system. Look up what the patriarchal system was all about and i'll answer your question.

quote:

---

Then explain why God told Abraham at Gen 22:18 " by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice."

---

You mean why the writer had God tell Abraham that. The story deals with the beginning of the chosen people. The writer is not talking about his future. The writer is writing about the past and referring to his present.

quote:

---

Obedience was more important then sacrifices. But this in no way means that the sacrifices were not instituted at Gods direction. They certainly were and sacrifices to God began long before the mosaic law did. You may recall that Able offered to God a sacrifice of greater value then Cain did.
Also Abraham 'as good as offered up Isaac' when he was tested.

---

Exactly! Obedience was more important than sacrifices. I agree sacrifices started long before the Levitical Laws and in areas not related to the Hebrews. Show me that God instituted sacrifices for wrong behavior before the Levicital Laws. Most sacrifices were an offering of thanks or dealt with contracts/covenants. They weren't necessarily required. According to Jeremiah God did not give them commands concerning burnt offering and sacrifice after they left Egypt.Again what does this have to do with the Christian laws you haven't been able to list?

quote:

---

to help you out a bit, Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Isaac etc lived under a 'Patriarchal' system. Look up what the patriarchal system was all about and i'll answer your question.

---

I'm quite aware what a patriarchal system entails, and I agree the systems these men were under were probably patriarchal. So what's your point? Oddly enough, the A&E story may have been from a more matriarchal time. Notice man is to leave his family and cleave to the woman. But when we read the rest of the Bible, the women actually leave their family to join the man's family. The snake may have approached the woman because she was the leader, not the weak link. The man ate the fruit without question. Just food for thought.I agree that the cultures within the Bible were patriarchal. That doesn't mean there weren't any rules.So what is the point concerning the Christian Laws you haven't been able to list?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I mean that they replaced the bibles, usage of 1901 American Standard Bible for the New World Translation. I have never once seen a Jehovah Witness come to my door with a 1901 American Standard Bible.
In over 30 years I have never met one with a 1901 ASB, at least with him or her.My copy is a little tattered but what outer pages I have does say Watchtower printed it and not published it, as you said. The argument seems to be with the better translation of it. What I think I heard you claim is that the second occurance of God is an adjective on one hand and "a god" on the other. At least that is your theological position, that the Word was a god and not God.This grammatical issue I will take more time to look into. However the list of comparisons between YHWH and Jesus should have spoken for itself. I'll look into this grammatical issue. However, what I said was replaced was not a word in the greek text but a English version from usage in JW outreach efforts. Nor I. We have that in common. I mean I read it with a lot of crutches and tools near by. We have churches in Greece as well. They would not accept that Jesus Christ was an angelic being.And I think the Greek Orthodox Church would not accept that either. Correct me if I err here. Good question into which I need to do more study.However, the night that Jesus Christ came into my heart I would not know John 1:1 from John 2:2. I called on the name of Jesus and God came into my life period.No translators were there. When I called on Jesus God came. That much I know.I ALSO know that shortly after I met some Jehovah's Witnesses. And the net effect of talking with them was to doubt my encounter with God. And I noticed that they did not talk about Jesus the way I knew Jesus. It was sterile, doctrinal, dead, dogmatic, and revealed a lack of personal experience.For this confusion I prayed and peace was restored that I was on the right track to exalt Jesus in my life. Latter I became a more serious Bible student and discovered that what they taught about Jesus was wrong.They tried to make Jesus the same person as Michael the arch angel. Dreadful mistakes they made. This passage definitely reveals the Triune God to me.The Divine "Us" in Genesis is the same as the Divine "We" in John 14:23. The only difference is that Christ the Son of God has not been born from the virgin Mary yet in Genesis. And He had not been resurrected to become a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) . When Jesus came to me the Father came to me with Him. And it was the Spirit of Reality, the Another Comforter who brought Christ and His Father into my innermost being. The Triune God is the Us in Genesis and the We in John. I am aware of that passage. However God says that He stretched out the heavens alone and that no one was with Him to spread out the earth: It must mean that only God took part in this creative work. God alone did the work and not an angel or an inferior god recently created.But for the record angels were called sons of God. And even Adam was called one. But the Jews did not excecute Jesus because He said He was an angel or that He was Adam. But saying that He was Son of God they took as blaspheming to declare Himself God.They heard Him right but they were wrong. He was God the Son. Genesis says that God created man in His image after God said "Let Us create man ...". Can you point out where the angels are in the image of God ?And the book of Hebrews spends considerable portions explaining that Christ is superior to any angel. "For to which of the angels has He ever said, You are My Son ...?"The answer comes back silent. No angel ... not Michael, not Gabrael. And Jesus is obviously not mentioned because He is addressed as the Son of God and God in Hebrews 1:8.The bottom line is that God the Son as we often say, is biblical and the truth. It is a slim chance. I have considered it. I don't think it works in light of the whole revelation of the Bible.The definite contrast that the writer of Hebrews makes between the Son of God and angels makes it hard to think Christ was the first angel God created. And claiming the Christ is Michael he arch angel, I think, is rediculous.These are the ideas of someone who staggers in unbelief that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and that not sentimentally by in reality. God was IN Christ in reality. And God still is in Christ. It is clear that the us that Paul speaks of in this passage is the Christian church, those who receive Jesus as Lord and Savior - The Jehavah's Witnesses that attempted to lead me away from devotion to Christ were not part of the "us" of the disciples of church. They themselves made that clear.But to us there is one God. The "god of this world" Satan certainly is not our God.Jesus is the mingling of God and man to be our Lord. By saying He is God we do not mean that He is not a man. And by saying He is a man we do not mean that He is not God. He is God-man.And His plan is to produce many God-men. Only as the Head of this Body we worship Him as God and man. As the Body of this Body and not the Head we brothers of Jesus are sons of God but not objects of worship. He did the saving. He alone is the salvation. He is God incarnate. The saved become God in His expansion into His Body.He expressed God as an individual. The New Jerusalem as a aggregate of God-men expresses God as a corporate entity of millions or billions of sons of God who were made sons not incarnation but by salvation.We shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is (See 1 John 3:1,2)For God to mingle with man is the eternal plan of God. And it is for this that God created man in His image and according to His likeness. Since Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), man was made according to Christ.And I believe that the One walking in the cool of the evening in Genesis three, and the One stooping over to breath the breath of life into the nostrils of the first created man Adam, was Christ before He was born of the virgin Mary. I believe that God walking in the garden in the cool of the day was Christ the Son before He was born of the virgin Mary. Who else could it possibly be? We are told that God walked in the garden.He transcends time and could be seen walking as a man before He was actually born as a man when "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14). We are dealing here with God. Why do we ask of His name seeing that it is Wonderful ? We will come back to 1 Cor. 15 latter. That is all the time I have now.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are good with you. lol - so much for 'no issue with that'.It appears, on my end, we are in agreement here, which is the reason I previously stated, 'I have not asserted that such a verse exists'. I've missed your point I think. We are not discussing unidentified cherubim at the moment.In Message 198, we touched on the depiction of HaMashiach testifying whether anyone has ever seen the Father. Exodus contends Moses did. Yet, they did not see one another face to face, apparently. Instead, we are told, Moses caught a glimpse of the Father's backside and that may be sort of interesting.Within Exodus 33:20, the word employed for 'back' - 'achowr, also naturally tranlates to backward, alienated, unfaithful, withdrew, shame, etc.. Is the writer establishing whether the practitioners in this tradition are aware of Moses inability to present the better parts, or the front, of the Father to them?Is this tradition identifying a lack of diligence, patience and wisdom displayed by Moses as their Lawgiver and guardian of ToRaH (ie. Numbers, etc.)? Going back to Message 186, the issue of debate is whether the radical Prophetic traditions contend that the ToRaH has not undergone any form of redaction since it was first penned. You contend that HaToRaH has never been edited, since day one, and that it originally ordained animal sacrifices.Now, the issue is, the Prophetic traditions, specifically brutha Yirmiyahu's in this instance, seem to disagree with you and others on both accounts. I am not going to list all the ToRaH requirements concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. You know where to find them.So, if you locate a sacrificial ordination in the ToRaH, and trust the Prophet Yirmiyahu, you know you have found a forgery.If one finds such an ordination and contends it is not a forgery, they accuse the Prophet of lying. It seems like easy math. The difficulty seems to be in believing one's bible and trusting Prophets, as opposed to locating plain text passages attributed to their various writings.It is not nearly as difficult as you are thinking. While I agree that the symbolism associated to various Prophetic writings may be highly subjective, within their booklets are very plain declarations made without the use of symbolism as well. Purpledawn has already presented one for you in Message 213.Within chapter seven, at verse twenty two of his booklet, our brutha Yirmi declares ...'When I spoke to your ancestors after I brought them out of Egypt, I did not give them commands regarding burnt offerings and animal sacrifices'.

quote:

---

JPS TaNaKh
For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;

​

New American Standard Bible (1995)
For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

​

GOD'S WORD Translation (1995)
When I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not tell them anything about burnt offerings and sacrifices.

​

King James Bible
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

​

American King James Version
For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

​

American Standard Version
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

​

Bible in Basic English
For I said nothing to your fathers, and gave them no orders, on the day when I took them out of Egypt, about burned offerings or offerings of beasts:

​

Douay-Rheims Bible
For I spoke not to your fathers, and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices.

​

Darby Bible Translation
For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt;

​

English Revised Version
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

​

Webster's Bible Translation
For I spoke not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

​

World English Bible
For I didn't speak to your fathers, nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

​

Young's Literal Translation
For I did not speak with your fathers, Nor did I command them in the day of My bringing them out of the land of Egypt, Concerning the matters of burnt-offering and sacrifice,

---

A common apologetic dodge is to insist that 'animal sacrifices were not ordained when the people came out of Egypt, but rather later'. Thankfully, the law books specifically state that the 'law o' sacrifice' in question was delivered at the time of the 'Laws of Moses', which Moses supposedly received on the mountain.

quote:

---

Summary of Sacrificial Regulations in Leviticus 6:8-7:36

​

7:37 ~ This is the law for the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering, and the peace offering sacrifice,
7:38 ~ which the Lord commanded Moses on Mount Sinai on the day he commanded the Israelites to present their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai.

---

This Levitical decree clearly conflicts with the version of events given by the Prophet Yirmiyahu.Brutha Yirmi makes his condemnation of the law books explicit in the passage that follows (8:8) ...'How can you say, ‘We are wise, and our Father's ToRaH is with us’? Lo & behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie'.

quote:

---

JPS TaNaKh
How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of HaShem is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes.

​

New American Standard Bible (1995)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

​

GOD'S WORD Translation (1995)
" 'How can you say that you are wise and that you have the LORD's teachings? The scribes have used their pens to turn these teachings into lies.

​

King James Bible
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

​

American King James Version
How do you say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? See, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

​

American Standard Version
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.

​

Bible in Basic English
How is it that you say, We are wise and the law of the Lord is with us? But see, the false pen of the scribes has made it false.

​

Douay-Rheims Bible
How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.

​

Darby Bible Translation
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.

​

English Revised Version
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely.

​

Webster's Bible Translation
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain he hath made it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

​

World English Bible
How do you say, We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has worked falsely.

​

Young's Literal Translation
How do ye say, We are wise, And the law of Jehovah is with us? Surely, lo, falsely it hath wrought, The false pen of scribes.

---

That said, my question to you is, where is one able to locate symbolism within these specific passages of brutha Yirmi's booklet?

ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT OF YIRMIYAHU 7:22 Word Strong # Freq. KJV usages yk 03588 4478 that, because ... al 03808 5184 not, no ... ytrbd 01696 1144 speak 840, say 118 ... ta 0854 809 against, with ... Mkytwba 01 1212 father 1205, chief 2 ... alw 03808 5184 not, no ... Mytywu 06680 493 command 514, charge 39 ... Mwyb 03117 2305 day 2008, time 64 ... *yayuwh {ayuwh} 03318 1069 ....out 518, ....forth 411 ... Mtwa 0853 11050 not translated Uram 0776 2503 land 1543, earth 712 ... Myrum 04714 614 Egypt 586, Egyptian 90 ... le 05921 5778 upon, in ... yrbd 01697 1441 word 807, thing 231 ... hlwe 05930 289 burnt offering 264, burnt sacrifice 21 ... xbzw 02077 162 sacrifice 155, offerings 6 ...

If we would rather not attempt to create any symbolism, which is not readily available, it may please the Father overwhelmingly.I've taken a moment to arrange the breakdown of Yirmiyahu 8:8 for your convenience as well and most all the text is hotlinked ...

ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT OF YIRMIYAHU 8:8 Word Strong # Freq. KJV usages hkya 0349 82 how, what ... wrmat 0559 5308 said 4874, speak 179 ... Mymkx 02450 137 wise 109, wise man 13 ... wnxna 0587 118 we, ourselves ... trwtw 08451 219 law 219 hwhy 03068 6213 LORD 6510, GOD 4 ... wnta 0854 809 against, with ... Nka 0403 18 surely 9, but 3 ... hnh 02009 841 Behold, see ... rqsl 08267 113 lie 28, lying 21 ... hve 06213 2628 do 1333, make 653 ... je 05842 4 pen 4 rqs 08267 113 lie 28, lying 21 ... Myrpo 05608 161 scribe 50, tell 40 ...

Thanks again for your time and energy.I know they are commodities of sorts!One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

how does removing the definite article make a translation better?How does removing anything from the document you are translating make it better?You dont think its possible they purposefully removed it so it would sound more in line with their doctrine? the second theos (God) is a singular predicate noun. It occurs before the verb and without the definite article 'ho' in Greek. Such a sentence construction points to a [b]characteristic or quality[b] of the subject.
There are many other Bible verses where those who translate from the Greek into another language insert the article 'a' before the predicate noun even though there is no article in the Greek text.one example is at John 8:44. Speaking of the Devil, Jesus says: "That one was a manslayer when he began"..."He is a liar and the father of the lie."
In the original Greek the predicate noun in both these expressions ('manslayer' & 'liar') precedes the verb and has no definite article.In each case, a quality or characteristic of the Devil is being described and in many modern language translations, you'll see they've inserted the indefinite article 'a' in order to convey this.Now dont you think its strange that the same sentence construction exists in John 1:1 but some translators choose not to follow the rule they apply in other places? its not unusual for a religious group to publish their own bible, every other religious organization have done so, the catholics , the Greek Orthodox, the Baptists...they all publish their own translations. Its not unusual. no, the Greek Orthodox church wouldnt. they believe and support the trinity doctrine... and the majority of their adherents dont ask questions. Thats right and i agree, Jesus is above all of the angels. He has been given a position higher then all (except Jehovah)
From beginning to end, the Scriptures make hundreds of references to the angels, but only two of these spirit creatures are mentioned by name.
One is Gabriel, the other is Michael.
Now in the letter of Jude its Michael who confronts Satan. Again in the book of Revelation the same Michael wars with Satan and his demons and hurls them out of heaven. (Rev12:7-9) No other angel is portrayed as having such great power and authority over Gods enemies. And only this Michael is given the title 'the archangel'
The Arch meaning Chief/principle.Now think about this. If Jesus is above all angels, why is this particular Angel in the position he's in? Why is he the chief of all the angels? Why is he the one who conquers Gods enemy Satan as mentioned here in Rev...
______________________________________________________
Rev 12:7 "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9So down the great dragon was hurled
____________________________________________________But now look at what Jesus said about himself here:
Matthew 13:41 "The Son of man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and persons who are doing lawlessness, 42and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace"We know that Jesus is the 'Son of man' and he says that he will 'send forth the HIS angels'but according to the bible, the Archangel Micheal leads the heavenly angels in battle against Gods enemies, So who is this Archangel and how is he the Chief angel if Jesus said that the Angels were 'his' to command?The only logical explanation is that Jesus is Micheal the Archangel. This in no way demeans his position. He is in the highest position in the universe (with the exception of his Father)
All authority has been given to him in heaven and on earth and this is why all due honor goes to Jesus for the position he holds....however, all 'Worship' goes to Jehovah God. I'm sure that you probably did experience something, but i cannot say what it might have been. I have never had such an experience myself so i can only take your word for it, which i do.The Apostle Steven also had a religious experience that has been recorded in the book of Acts. When steven gave a witness to the pharasees, they proceeded to pelt him with stones and before he died he saw the 'heavens open up and Jesus was standing at the right hand of God'He was given a vision of Jesus in the heavens standing beside God Jehovah. Why do you think Luke would write this if God and Jesus were the same being? I'm interested in your opinion of this proverb, who do you say this is talking about:Proverbs 8:22"Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth...30then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men"

On one hand Christ, higher than the angels. On the other hand made a little lower than they for the suffering of death.But on to your main point. And I have to be selective today because of time limitations. The conquering of the Dragon and his angels in Revelation 12 is do to HUMAN BEINGS primarily and other angels only secondarily.The manchild who is raptured to the throne of God is a collective group of overcoming saints of God. They are human. And it is because of their rapture that the good angels led by Michael are given the charge to serve these overcoming human victors.The angels are for the service of man:"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth for service for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:14)As ministering spirits Michael and the good angels war with the Devil and his bad angels on behalf of the raptured manchild.To prove that the manchild is a collective group of redeemed humans is easy. And to prove that their rapture is what caused the heavenly battle to commence is not difficult:Then I will tackle the problem of Michael NOT being Jesus Christ. First: The plural pronouns - "THEY,THEIR,THEY,THEIR" all refer to the manchild who was raptured to the throne of God and because of said rapture the kingdom and authority of Christ have come."THEY,THEIR,THEY,THEIR" should not refer to the angels.The good angels are sinless and do not need the redemptive blood of the Lamb Jesus Christ. Fallen human beings in need of Christ's redemption are the ones qualified to overcome the accuser because of the blood of the LambFurthermore, "they loved not their soul-life even unto death" should indicate that this collective manchild is composed of human saints who have died. The angels do not die.So the good angels, acting as the ministering spirits, only war with the Devil and his angels based upon the overcoming of the saints who constitute the raesurrected and raptured manchild.Now could Michael be Jesus Christ? Jesus throughout Revelation is revealed as the Son of Man. And I believe He does appear as Another Angel in a few places as a sign. Since the Son was sent He quaslifies to be discribed as a Messenger (angel) in that regard only. But the Bible never says Christ is an arch-angel. It did say Michael was in Jude 9. And Hebrews is emphatic that the Son of God is not in the same class as angels.If the answer to the question "To which of the angels has He ever said, You are My Son?" (Hebrews 1:5) had come back - "Well, to Machael God said it,", then you would have a case. However, the answer seems to come back that to NO angel did God say this. That would include no archangel either. And therefore the Son of God CANNOT be Michael the archangel. The event of Matthew 13:41 is not the same event as in Revelation 12. Though at the rapture of the manchild and the hurling down of the Devil and his angels is directly accomplished by Michael and his angels, there is another three and one half years of great tribulation before the event of Matthew 13:41 could take place: This "short time" according to the next chapter is forty-two months (Rev. 13:5). And it is also the forty-two months mentioned in Revelation 11:2 and the "thousand two hundred and sixty days" mentioned in verse 3.The point being here that the two events are related but not the same event. Now Christ does give His command to the angels in both instances. It is to Michael that Christ, most likely WITH His overcoming manchild will direct Michael to war for them against the evil angels.Christ has long awaited a co-ruling group of overcomers to join with Him. He was man and they also are men. And God longs that His faithful people would command Him concerning the works of His hands: The priniciples of spiritual warfare require commanding prayer as well as requestiong prayer. Jesus said that YOU shall say to this mountains be removed and it would obey. This is beyond petitioning prayer. This is commanding prayer. But the commanders have to be beyond reproach and above satanic accusation to wield this kind of authority.In short the the command for Michael the archangel to fight, I have no doubt, come FROM tje God-man Jesus Christ and His manchild as those who overcame to be victorious co-partners with Him in the spiritual warfare.I do not think Jesus commands His angels in Matthew 13:41 but does not in Revelation 12:7.Today it says that there is one Mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). It didn't say the archangel Christ Jesus. And He is seen coming on the clouds of heaven as the Son of Man (Matt.26:64) and not the archangel.First Corinthians says that "the Last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). This life giving Spirit that Christ became has to be "the Spirit of life" (Romans 8:2). And we are told that the divine life is given by the Spirit - "... us ... minsters of the new covenant, [ministers] not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6)It is dreadful to teach that Michael the archangel is the life giving Spirit of the new covenant.It is biblical to teach that the life giving Holy Spirit is Christ in His pneumatic form: The last Adam is Christ. He became a life giving Spirit. It is dreadful to teach that the archangel Michael became the life giving Spirit of the new covenant. Nowhere in the Bible does it speak of Michael the archangel dwelling in the believers. It speaks plenty of Jesus Christ being in the believers - in them in His form as "life giving" Holy Spirit.The net effect of your kind of teaching is to distract people from receiving Christ and confusing the Son of Man with archangels. We need to receive Jesus Himself into us. The angels are helpful ministering spirits but Christ is the God imparting life giving One of the New Testament.But there is another problem still Peg. Jude indicates that Michael the archangel was lower in rank than Satan. At the same time you want people to believe that this Michael the archangel was the Logos, the highest of all created beings, and inferior god with no one higher in rank but Jehovah. Though the Devil was a renegade and a rebel Michael maintains respect for his ancient higher rank.Michael then who wars against the devil and his evil angels must have been of lower rank in the original creation and not of higher rank as your polytheistic little god of your view of John 1:1.That is all I can reply right now. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you plan on blowing out the rest of the thread on an off topic discussion with jaywill or are you going to explain your point concerning Christian laws? Message 215Edited by purpledawn, : SubtitleEdited by purpledawn, : Msg #

apologies for taking it off topic,now back to it. You seem to be of the opinion that we only need to obey the laws of the land in order to be approved by God. The point about Patriarchal societies was that they were governed, not by laws of the land, but by Gods laws. Before human societies were organized with self appointed rulers, they were governed by the family head under Gods laws.
Adam was the first Patriarch who had an understanding of Gods laws that he passed onto his children. This is why Cain was fearful after he murdered his brother because he understood that a murderer was to be executed for instance.
After the flood, Noah was the only Patriarch and he passed the laws of God onto his sons. This is why, when Noah was found naked in his tent, his sons covered him over with their backs to him in order to not look upon his nakedness.What this shows is that it is obedience to Gods laws that make one acceptable to God. The laws of man originally came from God. Sadly man has not maintained laws that meet the standards that God set which is why you cannot rely on them alone for Gods approval.The nations carry on wars where killing is required. God does not approve of this.
The nations have made abortion illegal, this is clearly in violation of Gods law for according to the bible, life begins at conception which is why the mosaic law required life for life in the case of someone injuring a pregnant woman and her suffering a miscarriage.

quote:

---

some xamples of patriarchal laws: after the Flood, God issued the first authorization to man to execute the penalty for murder. Ge 9:3-6

​

God also authorized the eating of meat with instructions on how the blood was to be treated. Gen 9:3-6

​

Abraham was given the command to circumcise all the males of his household as a sign of God’s covenant with him. Ge 17:11-12

---

This is why the mosaic laws are still relevant, although not a requirement for christians. They show us clearly what Gods standards are. Just because there is nowhere in the NT that says you must not have an abortion, we know that God does not approve of it due to the mosaic law as mentioned above. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You seem to be of the opinion that we only need to obey the laws of the land in order to be approved by God.

---

Not what I said. I contend that like Hillel before him, Jesus brought a more humane and universal notion of Torah interpretation. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. If one gets the spirit right, the details will take care of themselves.We look at what the authors in the Bible are trying to tell their audience and bring that spirit forward when obeying the laws of our own individual nations all the way down to our communities and families.There are no Christian laws, there are only Christian principles derived from the spirit of the ancient writings and the experiences of people who have gone before. (Message 114)I have not implied "only". We aren't talking about the means to salvation.Christianity presents the idea that believers are not under "law" to be counted righteous, but one must follow "law" to show faith. (Message 160)Peg, you have also presented this idea as I showed in (Message 6). We are discussing the required behavior necessary for a Christian to show faith. As shown above, you stated that one must follow God's laws in order to obtain righteous standing.As I said to jaywill in Message 164, I want to know what specific behaviors or actions are required by Christians to manifest their faith in God?In Message 180, I stated: Now both of you are hung up on the "being deemed righteous issue". Not once have I asked for the list of laws that will make one righteous before God. You are the one who says we must follow God's laws. Even Jaywill's quote says we still aren't allowed to be lawless and disobedient.Keep up please. So far you've shown me that we are to be following Mosaic and Jewish Law.

quote:

---

The point about Patriarchal societies was that they were governed, not by laws of the land, but by Gods laws. Before human societies were organized with self appointed rulers, they were governed by the family head under Gods laws.

---

Sorry, patriarchy doesn't automatically mean the laws are from a god.

quote:

---

What this shows is that it is obedience to Gods laws that make one acceptable to God. The laws of man originally came from God. Sadly man has not maintained laws that meet the standards that God set which is why you cannot rely on them alone for Gods approval.

---

Your mythology again.

quote:

---

The nations carry on wars where killing is required. God does not approve of this.

---

Have you read the OT?

quote:

---

The nations have made abortion illegal, this is clearly in violation of Gods law for according to the bible, life begins at conception which is why the mosaic law required life for life in the case of someone injuring a pregnant woman and her suffering a miscarriage.

---

Exodus 21 doesn't support your position. See you aren't following the law as written, you are trying to understand the point and apply it to the laws we have today. Personally, I think you missed the point.

quote:

---

This is why the mosaic laws are still relevant, although not a requirement for christians.

---

Back to the beginning. The Mosaic Laws are still relevant, but not required. Make up your mind!You are essentially saying the same thing I've been saying.We look at what the authors in the Bible are trying to tell their audience and bring that spirit forward when obeying the laws of our own individual nations all the way down to our communities and families.There are no Christian laws, there are only Christian principles derived from the spirit of the ancient writings and the experiences of people who have gone before.You haven't shown me otherwise.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Trace back to the ancient writings and please tell me from which one this Christian priniciple is derived from: Which ancient law is being brought forward here stating that man may become a partaker of the divine nature?What about this principle: Could you identify which law in the Old Testament is being brought forward here?How about this Christian exhortation: Particularly, this matter of "every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love ..."Which Old Testament law is being brought forward here?Which law of the Old Testament is being brought forward in this exhortation for Christ to be formed in the believers in Christ? Can you identify the Old Testament law being brought forward in this case? Which Old Testament law is being brought forward in spirit here? Which Old Testament law is being brought forward in this case? Which Old Testament law is being brought forward here? Can you trace these all back to their Old Testament legal roots?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

PD writes:

​

There are no Christian laws, there are only Christian principles derived from the spirit of the ancient writings and the experiences of people who have gone before.

Can you trace these all back to their Old Testament legal roots?

---

This thread concerns behavior.These verses are preaching, not specific behaviors allowed or not allowed.2 Peter 1:4 - " ... you might become partakers of the divine nature ..."
1 John 3:9 - "Everyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin,...
Eph.15,16 - "But holding to truth in love, we may grow into Him in all things, who is the Head Christ, our from whom all the Body,...
Gal. 4:19 - "My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ is formed in you."
2 Cor. 3:18 - "But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed...
John 6:53,54 - "Jesus therefore said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood...These two deal with stopping wrong behavior as outlined at that time by the Jewish Laws and starting right behavior also outlined by Jewish Law of the time.Rom. 13:14 - " ... put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to [fulfill its] lusts" Eph. 4:24 - "And put on the new man, which was created according to God in righteousness and holiness of the truth."

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I thought it also concerns Christian principles. You said in essence "no laws, only Christian principles are in the NT. And they are in the spirit of the OT Law and advance them forward."Each of these prinicples I mentioned effects behaviors. And note, I only asked you to indentify the OT laws being brought forward in these Christian principles. Take for example Exodus 20 - 23 the decree of laws at Mt. Sinai. It is every bit as much "preaching". This one of your New Testament "principles". This is a New Testament principle effecting behaviors.The following verse 5 starts with this logic "And for this reason also, adding all diligence, supply bountifully in your faith virtue, and in virtue, knowledge ..." Peter continues exhortation to add several more human virtues. The are behaviors - "self-control, endurance, godliness, brotherly love, [agape] love ..."These all really amount to the overall exhortation implied, which is to LIVE by the divine nature which the Christians have become partakers of in verse 4.Where is the OT law being brought forward in the exhortation to live by the "divine nature" ? You cannot divorce this principle from exhortations and commands in First John. The previous verse 6 is a parallel to verse 9. Compare the two:"Everyone who abides in Him does not sin ..." (v.6) [b]"Eveyone who has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he cannot sin because he has been begotten of God." (v.8)Here is the time to use simple logic. If the divine seed makes it impossible to sin and the disciples who "abides in Him" does not practice sin, then there is an implicit exhortation to abide in Him, in the non-sinning divine seed which the believer has been begotten with.The implicit command, in fact, is stated explicitly here:"And now little children, abide in Him ..."(1 John 2:28)I'd like to know what Old Testament law is being brought foward teaching that a man has been begotten with a seed, the nature of which cannot sin. And where is the Old Testament saints told to abide in the non-sinning nature of that implanted seed? The strongly implied command here is that the Christians hold fast to the Head. The way the priniciple is written it is evident that it ia not automatic that the Christains hold fast. We are exhorted to DO so.Where can we see and OT law being revized and brought foward about holding to the Head of an organic Body? The exhortation is implied strongly that the Galatian Christians should ALLOW Christ to be formed in them. The entire context of the principle is that they should not resist such a formation of Christ withint them. The Apostle is laboring for this. The Apostle is fighting for this. The Apostle is defending attacks against this formation of Christ in the believers. The Judiazers are attacking the prinicple by destracting the Galatians to go back to OT law keeping.Can you identify what OT law is being brought foward in the imnplicit command to allow Christ to be formed in man ? You may say that this is only preaching. However the strong impication is that the Christians SHOULD behold and reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord so that they may be transformed by the Lord Spirit.The implied exhortation is that we should turn our hearts to the Lord so that the veil over our spiritual face may be removed. [b]"Indeed unto this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart; But whenever [their heart] turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." (2 Cor. 3:16)Surely, Paul is saying that the Christians should not be like the veiled listeners to the law of Moses. They should turn their hearts to the Lord that the veil may be removed. And with the veil removed, the glory of Christ may shine into their hearts, they may behold and reflect Him, and be transformed degree by degree into His image.These principles all imply behaviors. Do you know which OT law is being brought forward in such a case? I would think you could find something like this. The word picture is definitely based upon something that happened in the Old Testament. The implied exhortation to behave a certain way is to EAT His flesh and His blood. That is is you wish to have eternal life in you.Do you have the OT law which is being brought forward in the exhoration to eat Christ's flesh and blood for the gaining of eternal life ?How about the eating of God ? Jesus Christ is depicted here as clothing. Can you identify an OT law in which God is put on as clothing such that behavior is effected?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.