JW's Jesus is Archangel Michael?

[djhwoodwerks]

Col 1:15, 16 tells us that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation". "Firstborn" means that he was brought into existence by the one who caused his "birth". He is "the image" of his Father as his first and only direct creation. All other things came into existence via the agency of the son.

How deceived are you? Firstborn of all creation is speaking of His resurrection, He was the firstborn from the dead. Which is why it says, whoever is in Christ is a new "CREATION". Jesus is the firstborn of all "NEW" creation of Spirit beings.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Are "in the beginning" and firstborn related phrases. Abrahamic faith speaks of God having no beginning; if it is his word then how can we interpret "in the beginning" properly.

Is a word even necessary before there are others with whom to communicate?

It would seem that if God had planned to prepare a family he would first prepare his way of communicating with that family.

 

[Wharton]

What version are you quoting? This is not saying what you think it's saying. None of the translations I looked up render the verse this way. Perhaps you need to change to a more reliable translation in order to "read scripture"? Even the Catholic Bible does not translate the verse that way.

I used one similar to the one you used before you wrote your own NWT. It's called the KJV 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

How deceived are you? Firstborn of all creation is speaking of His resurrection, He was the firstborn from the dead. Which is why it says, whoever is in Christ is a new "CREATION". Jesus is the firstborn of all "NEW" creation of Spirit beings.

Before you get too excited, ponder the implications of the following verse:

Hebrews 2:11 "For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers,"

 

[Wharton]

Yes they do. We do not baptize infants as if they can somehow make a solemn vow to God before they can choose to do so. Without a dedication from the heart, that kind of baptism is meaningless. No one can dedicate themselves to doing God's will by proxy. For most, it is nothing but a kind of spiritual 'insurance', as if the act itself means anything without a dedication from the heart....and the children, more than likely, will not grow up to adopt the belief of their parents today anyway. So what did their "baptism" accomplish? It was a meaningless ritual.

Wrong. The baptism of Cornelius included his household. Household is a corporate word. It includes every one. If there was a problem with infant baptism, don't you think that there would have been another church council called in Jerusalem to condemn it?

What comes first below? Baptizing. What's second? Teaching. Entering the Body of Christ via baptism is wrong?

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

 

[Wharton]

What "authority" was needed to preach? All Christians were commanded to "preach the good news of the kingdom" and it was to take place right up to "the end" of the age, when Jesus would come as judge. (Matt 24:14 2 Thess 1:6-9) If it was only for the apostles, then who is "authorized" now? Only those authorized by your church?

Only the apostles were authorized to preach the gospel after Jesus ascended. Sorry. That's the way it goes. Read scripture. That authority is handed down to their successors just Like the Father handed it to Jesus and Jesus handed it to the apostles. Even Paul had the sense to go to Jerusalem to be approved of by the Apostles. So what Churches have valid preaching authority? Orthodox, Catholic, Old Catholic and any others that can prove valid apostolic succession. I have not researched the Copts but they are a possibility also.

The GB has no Jesus given authority to preach his gospel. It's only in your dreams because it's certainly not in the bible.

 

[Wharton]

No Catholic has ever approached me with anything even resembling the good news.....in fact they don't even want to talk about the Bible in most cases.

Hang around the forum some more. Maybe a few will pop up.

Understand that only a bishop is a teacher with authority via apostolic succession. If you have a question on faith, you ask a bishop. Priests, deacons, nuns and laity can not preach/interpret scripture. They can only TEACH what the Church teaches. Martin Luther was a priest that attempted to interpret scripture and you can see what a mess that ended up in.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Wrong. The baptism of Cornelius included his household. Household is a corporate word. It includes every one. If there was a problem with infant baptism, don't you think that there would have been another church council called in Jerusalem to condemn it?

Cornelius was (correction, a man of some age, not a young man). His household was made up of mature sons and daughters. In the Hebraic line of thinking ones adult children are yet considered one's household. It is not an expression that even has to be confined to one roof. Noah's matures sons and their wives were considered a part of Noah's household. That did not necessarily mean that they all lived under one material roof. As with Jobs household, his sons clearly had their own material roofs to dwell under.

And as far as there having to have been an church council to debate infant baptism, why would they debate what they did not practice? And they did not practice infant baptism. The purification ceremony of infants under the Old Law has been twisted by the Catholic Church as showing the propriety of infant baptism but the reality is that there is no comparison between the two things. That purification ceremony under the Old Law was a picture of parental obligation to submit their children to be taught by washing them in the water of God's word from infancy but insofar as their decision to dedicate themselves to God the child makes that decision for itself once it is old enough. And if the parent has appreciated that children are a gift of God and so began training and preparing the child from infancy, then Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

 

[Wharton]

What kind of double talk is this?? All other things created through Jesus, but He wasn't Jesus in the OT, He was Michael? If He was Michael in the OT, then all other things were created through Michael, correct? If Jesus wasn't in the OT, how could He create all other things?

LOL.

Jesus/Michael the Transformer, more than meets the eye. My kids used to play with them. Maybe JW Jesus/Michael is really Optimus Prime?

 

[Mountain_Climber]

John 3:27 "John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven."

John 5:19 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

John 8:28 "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

John 9:33 "If this man were not of God, he could do nothing."

Refer back to post 284.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Cornelius was a very old man. His household was made up of many mature sons and daughters. In the Hebraic line of thinking ones adult children are yet considered one's household. It is not an expression that even has to be confined to one roof. Noah's matures sons and their wives were considered a part of Noah's household. That did not necessarily mean that they all lived under one material roof. As with Jobs household, his sons clearly had their own material roofs to dwell under.

And as far as there having to have been an church council to debate infant baptism, why would they debate what they did not practice? And they did not practice infant baptism. The purification ceremony of infants under the Old Law has been twisted by the Catholic Church as showing the propriety of infant baptism but the reality is that there is no comparison between the two things. That purification ceremony under the Old Law was a picture of parental obligation to submit their children to be taught by washing them in the water of God's word from infancy but insofar as their decision to dedicate themselves to God the child makes that decision for itself once it is old enough. And if the parent has appreciated that children are a gift of God and so began training and preparing the child from infancy, then Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Baptism if for everyone, young and old. Aren't babies born in sin?

Act 2:37-39 (ESVST) 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, " Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Act 22:16 (ESVST) 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. '

 

[Wharton]

And as far as there having to have been an church council to debate infant baptism, why would they debate what they did not practice? And they did not practice infant baptism.

And you know this for sure and that Cornelius was a very old man? The average age for a Centurion was 20 to 30 years old.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

And you know this for sure and that Cornelius was a older man? The average age for a Centurion was 20 to 30 years old.

Yes, he was not a lower ranking centurion guard but a commander of centurion guards having as many as one hundred or more such guards under him. His maturity had earned him that. Besides that there is no indication that there were any infants in his immediate household. A child can choose to dedicate their self to God at any age in which they are mature enough to embrace faith and commitment of their own volition.

(note: I enter corrections above changing "very old man" to "older man" and the term Centurion to centurion guards.)

 

[Wharton]

Baptism if for everyone, young and old. Aren't babies born in sin?

Act 2:37-39 (ESVST) 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, " Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Act 22:16 (ESVST) 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. '

Correct.

Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision which was performed on the 8th day.

11 In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:).

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Baptism if for everyone, young and old. Aren't babies born in sin?

Act 2:37-39 (ESVST) 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, " Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Act 22:16 (ESVST) 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. '

Children are not necessarily infants. It being for children in no way requires that it includes infants. Asa I said, A child can choose to dedicate their self to God at any age in which they are mature enough to embrace faith and commitment of their own volition.

And you touched on one of the places where I and Jehovah's Witnesses disagree when you asked, "Aren't babies born in sin?"

The human body is but a slave. Adam's human body was but a slave from the moment it was created of God. The human body is a slave to a man's spirit and it does only what a man's spirit allows it to do. In fact sin is said to actually start in the mind rather than in the body. Desire is produced in a man's mind by how a man allows himself to think. And it works that same way for angels. And so it can also be said of angels that their spirit bodies are but slaves to the spirit they let operate in their minds. The fallacy of it being necessary to put on a literal spirit body before it can be said that one is incorruptible is clearly shown in that Satan and other angels were able to corrupt themselves the same as Adam did.

Because a body, whether spirit or flesh, is but a slave of the spirit one allows to operate in their mind, if that spirit one lets operate in the mind is a bad spirit then their body works bad. And conversely, if that spirit one lets operate in the mind is a good spirit then their body works good.

Adam's sin allowed the presence of sin into the world where having presence it could also have influence. And so as a child grows a child is faced with that influence which then requires the child to begin to use knowledge and wisdom to make choices about that influence. And in a child's early days they lack in that knowledge and wisdom and so the presence of sin in the world through Adam and the influence exerted upon the child by that sin which is in the world takes it toll upon them. None of this is true for an infant for that infant has not yet been faced with the influence of sin in the world and has not been forced to have to make choices concerning it.

Where does Romans 5:12 say sin entered? Into the world. Into the world were it has the presence to influence us. And it is sin's nature to influence. It indeed spreads like leaven. But the body is but a slave. Therefore we must be wise and submit our bodies as slaves of God's righteousness, preferably before we train bad habits into ourselves.

 

[Wharton]

Yes, he was not a lower ranking Centurion but a commander of Centurions having many under him. His maturity had earned him that. Besides that there is no indication that there were any infants in his immediate household. A child can choose to dedicate their self to God at any age in which they are mature enough to embrace faith and commitment of their own volition.

Faith is a family affair. Jewish male babies presented on the 8th day did not profess their faith in Moses to become part of the Jewish community so you're expecting a different process for Christians? The adults would be baptized and the children left on their own outside the faith?

BTW, a commander of Centurions would be a Tribune.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Correct.

Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision which was performed on the 8th day.

11 In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:).

Now note that one is done without hands unlike the water baptism you are referring to.

That is not referring to water baptism rather submersing ourselves willing into his death which is a kind of baptism even as is being submersed in the figurative fire which John the Baptist spoke of.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Faith is a family affair. Jewish male babies presented on the 8th day did not profess their faith in Moses to become part of the Jewish community so you're expecting a different process for Christians? The adults would be baptized and the children left on their own outside the faith?

BTW, a commander of Centurions would be a Tribune.

That is where you have adulterated what the 8th day circumcision represents. It is affecting your conclusions. Parents teaching their children from infancy in the word of God is not leaving the infant outside their faith. The infant is sanctified in relation to the parent the same as an unbelieving mate is sanctified in the believing mate until they come to the point of making their dedication.

You have worked very hard and as a result learned many things not quite accurately. It will therefore take a bit of work for us to sort through this together.

That is not necessarily true for the reference to Roman soldiers in the Bible. You are stepping outside to grasp at ideas which do not apply to the scriptures. The word you give does not even occur anywhere in the Bible. However, Strong's tells us that hekatontarches means the captian of one hundred men. See Strong's G1523

 

[Wharton]

That is not necessarily true for the reference to Roman soldiers in the Bible. You are stepping outside to grasp at ideas which do not apply to the scriptures. The word you give does not even occur anywhere in the Bible.

Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. He at once took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. And when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the tribune came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done.

(Acts 21:30-33 ESV)

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. He at once took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. And when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the tribune came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. He inquired who he was and what he had done.

(Acts 21:30-33 ESV)

chiliarchos

Instead of being the commander of 100 men as the Centurion you aforementioned, this one is the commander of 1000 men.

But it is the Bible version's choice as to whether they call it a Tribune for not nearly all Bibles do. However, the first part of the word Centurion stays true to the thought of the Greek word hekatontarches, which is one hundred, denoting the commander of 100 men.

Is a Trib a prefix for one thousand? Perhaps so. I have not searched that out.

I did state that wrongly in my earlier post when I said a commander of Centurions. I meant centurion guards. ( A band of guards under the command of a Centurion Chief, which is the arche suffix of hekatontarches.) Note that I entered corrections to post 293 and explained what those corrections were at the bottom. It was a rather stupid mistake I had made, calling a Centurion commander the commander of Centurions when what I meant was centurion guards.