Even C.T. Russell said Michael is not Christ.

imJRR

Well-known member
And you do not attempt to prove your point Also in the OT Jesus not mentioned. If he was God and is so prominent why would God leave him out and only mention him in the NT?

LOL! Oh, I've proven my point VERY well - I've given the irrefutable meaning of Jesus' statement in John 14:9. Any denial of that is nothing but an open, blatant falsehood. As for your question, that is totally, totally laughable, and a HUGE exposing of ignorance.

For Any and All - You are invited to consider the following:

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

By some counts, more than 300 Old Testament prophecies point to Jesus Christ and were fulfilled by Him in His life on earth. These include prophecies about His unique birth (Isaiah 7:14), His earthly ministry (Isaiah 61:1), and even the way He would die (Psalm 22). Jesus shocked the religious establishment when He stood up in the synagogue of Nazareth and read from Isaiah 61, concluding with this commentary: “This scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing today” (Luke 4:18–21).
 

Nathan P

Active member
LOL! Oh, I've proven my point VERY well - I've given the irrefutable meaning of Jesus' statement in John 14:9. Any denial of that is nothing but an open, blatant falsehood. As for your question, that is totally, totally laughable, and a HUGE exposing of ignorance.

For Any and All - You are invited to consider the following:

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

By some counts, more than 300 Old Testament prophecies point to Jesus Christ and were fulfilled by Him in His life on earth. These include prophecies about His unique birth (Isaiah 7:14), His earthly ministry (Isaiah 61:1), and even the way He would die (Psalm 22). Jesus shocked the religious establishment when He stood up in the synagogue of Nazareth and read from Isaiah 61, concluding with this commentary: “This scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing today” (Luke 4:18–21).
John 5:46 has nothing to do with the OT and Jesus. You always say things but you do not explain it because that is not talking about the OT. And who are you saying wrote about Jesus at John 5:46?
 

imJRR

Well-known member
John 5:46 has nothing to do with the OT and Jesus. You always say things but you do not explain it because that is not talking about the OT. And who are you saying wrote about Jesus at John 5:46?

LOL! Oh, sure it does. Jesus refers to Moses. As for the "always not explaining things" - That idea/statement is nothing less than just blatant falsehood. I'm very content to let readers decide between us on that.
 
Last edited:

Nathan P

Active member
LOL! Oh, sure it does. Jesus refers to Moses and said "He wrote of me." As for the "always not explaining things" - That idea/statement is nothing less than just blatant falsehood. I'm very content to let readers decide between us on that.
Yes let them decide who has a better point. For one I do not see you arguing with me about the meaning of to and into and how they would apply to whether Jesus was on earth when he was sent into the world? Again it would have to say he was sent to the world to have been sent from heaven. How do you figure that since it was Moses who wrote about him at John 5:46 and it is talking about the OT there?
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Yes let them decide who has a better point. For one I do not see you arguing with me about the meaning of to and into and how they would apply to whether Jesus was on earth when he was sent into the world? Again it would have to say he was sent to the world to have been sent from heaven. How do you figure that since it was Moses who wrote about him at John 5:46 and it is talking about the OT there?

Yes, let them decide what Jesus openly, clearly directly, personally, and irrefutably said about Himself in John 14:9.

And let them decide for themselves what the founder of the JW cult said also. Isn't it "interesting" that that foundational doctrine got changed?

And - Explanation: I haven't argued about the meaning of "to" and "into" because to me, personally - I see that discussion as being as irrelevant as a ballpoint pen is to a mollusk.
 
Last edited:

Nathan P

Active member
Yes, let them decide what Jesus openly, clearly directly, personally, and irrefutably said about Himself in John 14:9.

And - Explanation: I haven't argued about the meaning of "to" and "into" because to me, personally - I see that discussion as being as irrelevant as a ballpoint pen is to a mollusk.
You do not want to discuss to and into because it would prove that since Jesus was sent into the world that means he was sent from the earth into the world. And it is not talking about the OT at John 5:46.

Also what he wrote about Jesus at John 5:46 are prophecies. It is all on Google.
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! Suuure.

I'll submit that your personal declaration regarding me, in terms of my not wanting to discuss "to" and "into" should be seen as being on the same level as you declaring that I believe the moon really IS made out of green cheese.

I really, actually, truly and genuinely DON'T believe that.

Yes, I really DO believe that that needed to be openly stated, considering the imaginations that have been seen in your posts.

Your posts are totally and completely off-topic from the original post.
 
Last edited:

Nathan P

Active member
LOL! Suuure.

I'll submit that your personal declaration regarding me, in terms of my not wanting to discuss "to" and "into" should be seen as being on the same level as you declaring that I believe the moon really IS made out of green cheese.

I really, actually, truly and genuinely DON'T believe that.

Yes, I really DO believe that that needed to be openly stated, considering the imaginations that have been seen in your posts.

Your posts are totally and completely off-topic from the original post.
You do understand that what was written about Jesus in the OT were prophecies?
 

Nathan P

Active member
LOL! Oh, sure it does. Jesus refers to Moses. As for the "always not explaining things" - That idea/statement is nothing less than just blatant falsehood. I'm very content to let readers decide between us on that.
It has to do with prophecies about Jesus in the OT.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
It has to do with prophecies about Jesus in the OT.
LOL! In an earlier post you openly and clearly say Jesus isn't spoken of in the OT. Now, in the last two posts, you openly and clearly say that He is indeed spoken of.
 

Nathan P

Active member
LOL! In an earlier post you openly and clearly say Jesus isn't spoken of in the OT. Now, in the last two posts, you openly and clearly say that He is indeed spoken of.
When I said Jesus was not mentioned on the OT that meant he did not exist during that time frame. I am not doubting that he was spoken of in prophecies by people from that time frame. Again it is all on Google and unless someone proves them wrong I have to go by what they say.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
When I said Jesus was not mentioned on the OT that meant he did not exist during that time frame. I am not doubting that he was spoken of in prophecies by people from that time frame. Again it is all on Google and unless someone proves them wrong I have to go by what they say.

HAVE TO GO BY

Indeed...Google...Uh huh.

Well, it appears that the possibilities of the original post and thought(s) of this thread are about the same as the moon really and truly BEING made of green cheese. That's too bad, but perhaps it will come up again. I find it..."interesting" that that foundational doctrine of the Watchtowerites got changed from what its founder declared.
 
Last edited:

jamesh

Well-known member
And what I posted proves he was sent into the world as Jesus after the Word became flesh and was not sent to the world from heaven as Jesus. You have to prove your point like I did.
Ok Nathan, I just happen to be reading through this thread and cane across what you said here. Your asking for "proof" that Jesus actually came down from heaven. So here it is.

John 6:42, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, "I have come down out of heaven?" John 3:13, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He/Jesus Christ who DESCENDED from heaven; the Son of Man." John 6:33, "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." John 6:68, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him/God the Father who sent Me."

In order for someone to send somebody to let's to the store, they have to have existed to go to the store. How about Ephesians 4:9, "(NOw this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth." Let's see you refute thiese verses Nathan? You can't!

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Nathan P

Active member
Ok Nathan, I just happen to be reading through this thread and cane across what you said here. Your asking for "proof" that Jesus actually came down from heaven. So here it is.

John 6:42, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, "I have come down out of heaven?" John 3:13, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He/Jesus Christ who DESCENDED from heaven; the Son of Man." John 6:33, "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." John 6:68, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him/God the Father who sent Me."

In order for someone to send somebody to let's to the store, they have to have existed to go to the store. How about Ephesians 4:9, "(NOw this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth." Let's see you refute thiese verses Nathan? You can't!

IN GOD THE SON,
james
How many times do we have to cover this? When Jesus says I have come down out of heaven he has to talk in the present tense because the humans knew him as Jesus and not the Word. He could not have said to the humans I the Word came down out of heaven because he is the man Jesus when the humans knew him. And you still want to avoid the point and instead of providing conclusive proof of where it says there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh, you all are still finding scriptures that you want want them to mean what you want them to mean.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Jesus openly, clearly, directly, and irrefutably declared that seeing Him equals seeing God Himself. John 14:7-9.
Heb. 1:3 says He is the EXACT representation of God Himself. Everything the Father is, the Son is. There's nothing missing
Heb. 1:8 has the Father openly and directly calling the Son "God".
There is nothing you can do about this. This is the witness of Scripture.
 

jamesh

Well-known member
Jesus openly, clearly, directly, and irrefutably declared that seeing Him equals seeing God Himself. John 14:7-9.
Heb. 1:3 says He is the EXACT representation of God Himself. Everything the Father is, the Son is. There's nothing missing
Heb. 1:8 has the Father openly and directly calling the Son "God".
There is nothing you can do about this. This is the witness of Scripture.
Russell sure did say Jesus was not Michael. The Jw's cover themselves by saying they received new light. The problem with that viewpoint is refuted here:
IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

imJRR

Well-known member
The above is great!
"New light doesn't extinguish older light."

Old light: "Christ is not Michael."
New light: "Christ is Michael".
 

Nathan P

Active member
Jesus openly, clearly, directly, and irrefutably declared that seeing Him equals seeing God Himself. John 14:7-9.
Heb. 1:3 says He is the EXACT representation of God Himself. Everything the Father is, the Son is. There's nothing missing
Heb. 1:8 has the Father openly and directly calling the Son "God".
There is nothing you can do about this. This is the witness of Scripture.
From the dictionary representation means the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature. It means the description or portrayal of someone and not that that someone is the same as that other one. We are all exact in human nature but we are not the same persons.
 

jamesh

Well-known member
From the dictionary representation means the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature. It means the description or portrayal of someone and not that that someone is the same as that other one. We are all exact in human nature but we are not the same persons.
How about you explaining what your founder Russell stated about Jesus Christ not being an angel or even Michael the arc angel? Plus the fact that new light does not cancel out old light. I have the original books the photos were taken from. In short, Jesus is not an angel in which I have been trying to tell you for years.
IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Nathan P

Active member
How many times do we have to cover this? When Jesus says I have come down out of heaven he has to talk in the present tense because the humans knew him as Jesus and not the Word. He could not have said to the humans I the Word came down out of heaven because he is the man Jesus when the humans knew him. And you still want to avoid the point and instead of providing conclusive proof of where it says there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh, you all are still finding scriptures that you want want them to mean what you want them to mean.
How many times does this have to be explained to you all over and over again that since they know him as Jesus and they never knew him as the Word, that he he has to talk in the present tense and say I came down out of heaven instead of saying the Word came down out of heaven?
 
Top