Did Jesus create the angels?

shnarkle

Well-known member
That is all you got is God is unchanging? You need to provide clear proof of a Son of God before the Word became flesh?
Could you please point out where I'm making these claims? Usually, clear proof is necessary from those who are making these claims.

Regardless, logic works just fine with me. An unchanging god cannot become a father. God is either eternally the father or he must change. If he suddenly becomes a father, then prior to that moment he was eternally alone.

Now I will be the first to point out that God doesn't need anyone so he very well spend eternity alone. It just doesn't strike me as a very loving god.
 

Nathan P

Active member
Could you please point out where I'm making these claims? Usually, clear proof is necessary from those who are making these claims.

Regardless, logic works just fine with me. An unchanging god cannot become a father. God is either eternally the father or he must change. If he suddenly becomes a father, then prior to that moment he was eternally alone.

Now I will be the first to point out that God doesn't need anyone so he very well spend eternity alone. It just doesn't strike me as a very loving god.
You are the ones who says there has always been a Son of God and I say there has only been a Son of God for the last 2,000 years or based on evidence that there is a documented Son of God only after the Word became flesh. You all need to prove there has always been a Son of God because I have proven there has not always been a Son of God.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You are the ones who says there has always been a Son of God and I say there has only been a Son of God for the last 2,000 years or based on evidence that there is a documented Son of God only after the Word became flesh.
This assumes that the word is not the son which is the fallacy of Begging the Question.
You all need to prove there has always been a Son of God because I have proven there has not always been a Son of God.
You haven't proven anything. You've simply claimed that there was no son of God prior to the word becoming flesh. As I pointed out earlier, this would require God to go from being a bachelor to changing to the role of a father. This contradicts the biblical claim that God is unchanging. It also means that God exists alone eternally which is a pointless existence.

Jesus points out that he came from the father. He repeatedly points out that he existed long before he became the carpenter's son, and just as the word emanates from the mouth of God so too the son proceeds from the father. They're just two different metaphors describing the same thing.

If you prefer looking at with some story line about how God existed eternally alone "Till the one day when the lady met this fellow.
And they knew that it was much more than a hunch,
That this group must somehow form a family,...etc.", Go for it.
 

Nathan P

Active member
This assumes that the word is not the son which is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

You haven't proven anything. You've simply claimed that there was no son of God prior to the word becoming flesh. As I pointed out earlier, this would require God to go from being a bachelor to changing to the role of a father. This contradicts the biblical claim that God is unchanging. It also means that God exists alone eternally which is a pointless existence.

Jesus points out that he came from the father. He repeatedly points out that he existed long before he became the carpenter's son, and just as the word emanates from the mouth of God so too the son proceeds from the father. They're just two different metaphors describing the same thing.

If you prefer looking at with some story line about how God existed eternally alone "Till the one day when the lady met this fellow.
And they knew that it was much more than a hunch,
That this group must somehow form a family,...etc.", Go for it.
You have to document your claim and not say God is unchanging.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You have to document your claim and not say God is unchanging.
My apologies. Your posts indicated that you had more than a rudimentary familiarity with these texts.

Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Malachi 3:6

“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

James 1:17

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

Psalm 102:25-27

Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end."

The following verse points out that the son exists prior to the incarnation. God cannot send a son into the world if the son doesn't already exist.

1 John 4:9-11

In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world,

Psalm 102:27

But you are the same, and your years have no end.








 

Nathan P

Active member
Could you please point out where I'm making these claims? Usually, clear proof is necessary from those who are making these claims.

Regardless, logic works just fine with me. An unchanging god cannot become a father. God is either eternally the father or he must change. If he suddenly becomes a father, then prior to that moment he was eternally alone.

Now I will be the first to point out that God doesn't need anyone so he very well spend eternity alone. It just doesn't strike me as a very loving god.
Documentation counts and not your opinion. For further documentation look up unchanging and you will see it has nothing to do with what you are saying.
 

Nathan P

Active member
This assumes that the word is not the son which is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

You haven't proven anything. You've simply claimed that there was no son of God prior to the word becoming flesh. As I pointed out earlier, this would require God to go from being a bachelor to changing to the role of a father. This contradicts the biblical claim that God is unchanging. It also means that God exists alone eternally which is a pointless existence.

Jesus points out that he came from the father. He repeatedly points out that he existed long before he became the carpenter's son, and just as the word emanates from the mouth of God so too the son proceeds from the father. They're just two different metaphors describing the same thing.

If you prefer looking at with some story line about how God existed eternally alone "Till the one day when the lady met this fellow.
And they knew that it was much more than a hunch,
That this group must somehow form a family,...etc.", Go for it.
You have to prove the Word was the Son and you can not do that?
 

Nathan P

Active member
My apologies. Your posts indicated that you had more than a rudimentary familiarity with these texts.

Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Malachi 3:6

“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

James 1:17

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

Isaiah 40:8

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.

Psalm 102:25-27

Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end."

The following verse points out that the son exists prior to the incarnation. God cannot send a son into the world if the son doesn't already exist.

1 John 4:9-11

In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world,

Psalm 102:27

But you are the same, and your years have no end.








That proves nothing because as has been explained to you all over and over and so forth when humans says that God sent his only Son into the world they knew him only as the Son and not the Word and they have to refer to him in the present tense and that is the Son and not the Word. Also it says into the world which means he is already on the earth. It would have to say he sent his Son to the world for you to be right.
Also the word of means to indicate a person or thing that has already been mentioned or seen or is clearly understood from the situation according Websters dictionary. The point being at rev. 14:14 Jesus is sitting on a cloud and has a sharp sickle in his handand at vss 15 an16 he he harvests the earth after another angel tells him to, then at vs 17 another angel has a sharp sickle, then at vs 18 another angel says to the angel with the sharp sickle to gather the clusters of grapes from the vines of the earth for they are fully ripe for judgment. Since he said that to the angel with the sickle it indicates a person or thing that already is clearly understood from the situation and that is Jesus harvested the earth in vs 16 and thus it is clearly understood that Jesus has to be the angel at vss 19-20 because the only other angel mentioned there it said he had a sharp sickle and not that that he was the one with the sickle. You need to pay attention to the wording and there is a difference between the meaning of the word "a" and the word "the".
 

Nathan P

Active member
That proves nothing because as has been explained to you all over and over and so forth when humans says that God sent his only Son into the world they knew him only as the Son and not the Word and they have to refer to him in the present tense and that is the Son and not the Word. Also it says into the world which means he is already on the earth. It would have to say he sent his Son to the world for you to be right.
Also the word "the" means to indicate a person or thing that has already been mentioned or seen or is clearly understood from the situation according to Websters dictionary. The point being at rev. 14:14 Jesus is sitting on a cloud and has a sharp sickle in his handand at vss 15 an16 he he harvests the earth after another angel tells him to, then at vs 17 another angel has a sharp sickle, then at vs 18 another angel says to the angel with the sharp sickle to gather the clusters of grapes from the vines of the earth for they are fully ripe for judgment. Since he said that to the angel with the sickle it indicates a person or thing that already is clearly understood from the situation and that is Jesus harvested the earth in vs 16 and thus it is clearly understood that Jesus has to be the angel at vss 19-20 because the only other angel mentioned there it said he had a sharp sickle and not that that he was the one with the sickle. You need to pay attention to the wording and there is a difference between the meaning of the word "a" and the word "the"
 
Last edited:

Nathan P

Active member
At https://www.merriam-webster.com dictionary "a" means referring to someone for the first time in a text or conversation. Meaning it can not be referring to the angel with a sickle and it has to be referring to the angel with the sickle and it has to be referring to an already mentioned one and the only mentioned one before that is Jesus that is clearly understood in the conversation at rev. 14:14- 19.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
when humans says that God sent his only Son into the world they knew him only as the Son and not the Word
How they may know him doesn't negate that the author claims God sent his Son into the world. God can't send his son into the world if it isn't his son. His son isn't in the world until he sends him into the world.
and they have to refer to him in the present tense and that is the Son and not the Word.
This doesn't prove that what the author says is false which is what you're claiming. You're literally claiming that the biblical author's claims are false. Good luck with that.
Also it says into the world which means he is already on the earth. It would have to say he sent his Son to the world for you to be right.
I send my son into the grocery store doesn't mean that he's already in the grocery store. Fail. I sent my son to the grocery store is also a distinction with no effective difference. If you think this is a good argument, try to develop it a bit more because as it stands now, it way to vague and easily refuted.
Also the word of means to indicate a person or thing that has already been mentioned or seen or is clearly understood from the situation according Websters dictionary.
Could you post that again, but this time please articulate it in such a way as to make it comprehensible?
The point being at rev. 14:14 Jesus is sitting on a cloud and has a sharp sickle in his handand at vss 15 an16 he he harvests the earth after another angel tells him to, then at vs 17 another angel has a sharp sickle, then at vs 18 another angel says to the angel with the sharp sickle to gather the clusters of grapes from the vines of the earth for they are fully ripe for judgment. Since he said that to the angel with the sickle it indicates a person or thing that already is clearly understood from the situation and that is Jesus harvested the earth in vs 16
I guess if this all makes sense to you, then that's going to have to be good enough for everyone else, right?
and thus it is clearly understood
Uh, not even close. There is nothing that is clearly understood in that last paragraph. It's a mess at best.
that Jesus has to be the angel at vss 19-20 because the only other angel mentioned there it said he had a sharp sickle and not that that he was the one with the sickle.
LOL. So having a sharp sickle doesn't mean that he is the one with the sickle?
You need to pay attention to the wording
Perhaps you might want to take your own advice. See above.
 

Nathan P

Active member
How they may know him doesn't negate that the author claims God sent his Son into the world. God can't send his son into the world if it isn't his son. His son isn't in the world until he sends him into the world.

This doesn't prove that what the author says is false which is what you're claiming. You're literally claiming that the biblical author's claims are false. Good luck with that.

I send my son into the grocery store doesn't mean that he's already in the grocery store. Fail. I sent my son to the grocery store is also a distinction with no effective difference. If you think this is a good argument, try to develop it a bit more because as it stands now, it way to vague and easily refuted.

Could you post that again, but this time please articulate it in such a way as to make it comprehensible?

I guess if this all makes sense to you, then that's going to have to be good enough for everyone else, right?

Uh, not even close. There is nothing that is clearly understood in that last paragraph. It's a mess at best.

LOL. So having a sharp sickle doesn't mean that he is the one with the sickle?

Perhaps you might want to take your own advice. See above.
No take you own advice and pay attention because there is a difference between the words "a" and "the". Listen closely and the one with a sickle is being mentioned for the first time and the one with the sickle indicates one that has been mentioned and is clearly understood from the situation and the only one clearly mentioned before that is Jesus on a could with a sickle because as was explained to you the angel with a sickle is being being mentioned for the first time. If you disagree take it up with websters dictionary at https://ww.merriam-webster.com
 

Nathan P

Active member
Gladly. Bye
I do not see you taking it up and challenging what I said best fits the definition of those words at websters dictionary? Until you can prove otherwise since the angel shouted to the one with the sickle and not the one with a sickle and since it is the one with the sickle who gathers the grapes and not the one with a sickle that means the one with the sickle is clearly understood from the situation and the only one clearly understood from the situation and that is Jesus who harvested the earth. I do not see you trying to prove the dictionary definition wrong and until you can that means Jesus had to be the angel with the sickle at vs 18.
 
Last edited:

Nathan P

Active member
How they may know him doesn't negate that the author claims God sent his Son into the world. God can't send his son into the world if it isn't his son. His son isn't in the world until he sends him into the world.

This doesn't prove that what the author says is false which is what you're claiming. You're literally claiming that the biblical author's claims are false. Good luck with that.

I send my son into the grocery store doesn't mean that he's already in the grocery store. Fail. I sent my son to the grocery store is also a distinction with no effective difference. If you think this is a good argument, try to develop it a bit more because as it stands now, it way to vague and easily refuted.

Could you post that again, but this time please articulate it in such a way as to make it comprehensible?

I guess if this all makes sense to you, then that's going to have to be good enough for everyone else, right?

Uh, not even close. There is nothing that is clearly understood in that last paragraph. It's a mess at best.

LOL. So having a sharp sickle doesn't mean that he is the one with the sickle?

Perhaps you might want to take your own advice. See above.

How they may know him doesn't negate that the author claims God sent his Son into the world. God can't send his son into the world if it isn't his son. His son isn't in the world until he sends him into the world.

This doesn't prove that what the author says is false which is what you're claiming. You're literally claiming that the biblical author's claims are false. Good luck with that.

I send my son into the grocery store doesn't mean that he's already in the grocery store. Fail. I sent my son to the grocery store is also a distinction with no effective difference. If you think this is a good argument, try to develop it a bit more because as it stands now, it way to vague and easily refuted.

Could you post that again, but this time please articulate it in such a way as to make it comprehensible?

I guess if this all makes sense to you, then that's going to have to be good enough for everyone else, right?

Uh, not even close. There is nothing that is clearly understood in that last paragraph. It's a mess at best.

LOL. So having a sharp sickle doesn't mean that he is the one with the sickle?

Perhaps you might want to take your own advice. See above.
No you need to pay attention because there is a difference between the angel who had the sickle and the angel who had a sickle. From rev. 14:14-19 show me anyone other than Jesus who is clearly understood from the situation? Meaning the angel with the sickle at vs 18-19 had to have been Jesus because Jesus is the only one clearly understood from vss 14-19.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
No it is not Jesus who speaks at rev. 1:8 and that can be proven as you have to start from vs 4 and read on through vs 8. Listen closely and at vs 8 the one who says he is Lord God says I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come, the Almighty one. Now go to vs 4 and it says Grace and peace from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come from the sevenfold Spirit before his throne and from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness to these things etc. Since it says and from Jesus Christ Jesus can not be the one who is, who always was and who is still to come and thus it has to be the Father who is the one who is , who always was, and who is still to come. The Father has to be spoken of as the Lord God in vs 8 of rev. 1 because he is the only one there described as the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come.

LOL! Oh, yes - It is most certainly Jesus who speaks at 1:8 and again 22:13. Only open dishonesty by way of intentionally ignoring the context of those verses would try to say otherwise. Although JWs are famous/infamous for doing this quite often, it is a) deliberately dishonest, and b) not going to work. There are numerous other (and more clear) Scripture references to show the truth that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, the Savior and not an angel, but your posts avoid them like an alley cat would a full immersion bath. This is understandable - There's no way your postings can honestly deal with verses like John 1:1; 1:18; 14:1; 14:8-9; Col. 1:15-16; 2:10; Heb. 1:3 and 8. Nor can your posts honestly deal with the flip-flop contradictions the JW masters have made that Fred has been documenting in his threads.
 
Last edited:

Nathan P

Active member
LOL! Oh, yes - It is most certainly Jesus who speaks at 1:8 and again 22:13. Only open dishonesty by way of intentionally ignoring the context of those verses would try to say otherwise. Although JWs are famous/infamous for doing this quite often, it is a) deliberately dishonest, and b) not going to work. There are numerous other (and more clear) Scripture references to show the truth that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, the Savior and not an angel, but your posts avoid them like an alley cat would a full immersion bath. This is understandable - There's no way your postings can honestly deal with verses like John 1:1; 1:18; 14:1; 14:8-9; Col. 1:15-16; 2:10; Heb. 1:3 and 8. Nor can your posts honestly deal with the flip-flop contradictions the JW masters have made that Fred has been documenting in his threads.
No I proved my point and documented it and you are just saying so without documentation. Listen closely the one at rev. 1:8 is the one who is, who always was and is still to come. Now at vs 4 it is grace and peace from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come correct? Those 2 in vss 4 and 8 are the same one and it can not be Jesus because after saying grace and peace from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come it then says and from Jesus Christ. When it says and from Jesus Christ that means he is separate from the one who says grace and peace from from the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come. There is no doubt the Father is speaking in vs 8. Now you have to explain and not just say so how Jesus is speaking in vs 8?

Your problem with comparing rev. 1:8 to 22:13 is 1:8 does not say the first and the last in addition to saying the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end proving those scriptures are talking about 2 different ones.
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Well-known member
There is only One who is Alpha and Omega and that is God Himself. Jesus clearly identifies Himself as that in 22:12-13. You deny that, yes, but that's another matter.

The fact, truth, and reality is that the great preponderance of biblical evidence is against the idea that Christ is an angel. As stated earlier -There are numerous other, more important, more clear Scripture references to show the truth that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, the Savior and not an angel. However, I believe it is glaringly obvious even to those who might only skim over this thread that your posts would much, MUCH rather avoid the more important and clear Scriptures - very much like an alley cat would avoid a full immersion bath. For me, this is nothing new - I have years of personal experiences similar to what's happening here. JWs simply do not have the capacity to honestly deal with the more important, straightforward and clear verses regarding the Deity of Christ like John 1:1; 1:18; 14:1; 14:8-9; Col. 1:15-16; 2:10; Heb. 1:3 and 8 (and there are more).
 
Top