In The Beggining

James Jones

Member
In the dangerous Jehovahs Witnesses Bible Paraphrased, the NWT, it renders v. 3, All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence..
If not even one thing existed apart from the Son, Jesus couldn't have been the first created being, because he created all things, and not even one thing existed apart from Him. The Son was with God in eternity, in the beginning, as Verses 1-2 tells us. . This is the meaning of the "first born," in Colossians 1, Jesus was no more the first creation of God (v. 15) anymore than he was the first one raised from the dead. (v. 18).
 
Welcome to Carm JJ. I recommend that you should familiar yourself with Carm before you start a thread. This thread of yours should be posted on the JW site. And btw, I agree with everything you stated. Keep up the good work.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
In the dangerous Jehovahs Witnesses Bible Paraphrased, the NWT, it renders v. 3, All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence..
If not even one thing existed apart from the Son, Jesus couldn't have been the first created being, because he created all things, and not even one thing existed apart from Him. The Son was with God in eternity, in the beginning, as Verses 1-2 tells us. . This is the meaning of the "first born," in Colossians 1, Jesus was no more the first creation of God (v. 15) anymore than he was the first one raised from the dead. (v. 18).

You are mistaken--apart from him included him being brought into existence. Coll 1:15--Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation--100% fact=all creation occurred at the beginning. He is Gods master worker= the one beside God during creation=Proverbs 8--He tells all he was created at Prov 8:22-25) No other being gets the title Gods master worker but the one whom God created all other things through. The being at Prov 8 was created direct-first and last, all other things created through that being. His name wasnt Jesus then and its 100% fact he is not YHWH. It is Michael God sent to the earth. He sent his best.
You see it takes believing Jesus over errors but no trinitarian will. John 17:3--This means eternal life, their knowing you( Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD and the one whom you sent forth Christ Jesus---2 major points there--the Father is the only true God and the only true God did not come to earth he sent another.
We all must choose who we believe. Those who follow Jesus believe him. John 20:17, Rev 3:12-1Cor 15:24-28
 
You are mistaken--apart from him included him being brought into existence. Coll 1:15--Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation--100% fact=all creation occurred at the beginning. He is Gods master worker= the one beside God during creation=Proverbs 8--He tells all he was created at Prov 8:22-25) No other being gets the title Gods master worker but the one whom God created all other things through. The being at Prov 8 was created direct-first and last, all other things created through that being. His name wasnt Jesus then and its 100% fact he is not YHWH. It is Michael God sent to the earth. He sent his best.
You see it takes believing Jesus over errors but no trinitarian will. John 17:3--This means eternal life, their knowing you( Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD and the one whom you sent forth Christ Jesus---2 major points there--the Father is the only true God and the only true God did not come to earth he sent another.
We all must choose who we believe. Those who follow Jesus believe him. John 20:17, Rev 3:12-1Cor 15:24-28

As usual, you are wrong. The word "firstborn" as used in Col. 1:15 has to do with supremacy. The contextual theme of Colossians 1:15-19 is that of the Supremacy of Christ. "Firstborn" is a Hebrew word having to do with rank, primacy, and supremacy. Vs. 15 is saying that Christ is the Supreme One over all Creation. That makes Him God. There is a different word for "first created", and that is the word Paul would have used if he wanted to convey the idea that Christ is a creation. He DOESN'T.

Even the JW masters admit that "firstborn" has to do with supremacy. “David, who was the youngest son of Jesses [sic], was called by Jehovah the “firstborn,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation” (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584; emphasis added).

And no - Jesus isn't Michael and Michael isn't Jesus. Here is John 14:8-9: 8 Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Question: Who is "the Father"? What/Who is being referred to by that phrase?
Obvious Answer: God Himself. Considering the context of who and what Philip is - a Jew - There is no other honest way to understand the phrase in Philip's request. This is not refutable.

Jesus, knowing full well who and what Philip is and the only possible meaning to his request, straightforwardly tells Philip, "If you've seen Me, you've seen Him. If you've seen me, you've seen God Himself." There is no other honest way to take that answer.
Jesus Christ openly declares that seeing Him = Seeing God Himself.

Christ tells Thomas the same thing in 14:7.
Christ makes the same open declaration about Himself in John 12:45.
As for John 17:3, Christ equates knowing Him with knowing God.
Christ equates believing in Him with believing in God in John 14:1.

JWs say that Jesus is Michael the archangel. No, that doesn't work, and it doesn't work BIG TIME. Here's why that's true:
Michael's name means "Who Is Like God?"
Obvious answer: NO ONE.
There is NO way that Michael would have made the claim for himself that Jesus makes in verse 9. He would have been...
a) going directly against the meaning of his own name, and
b) committing blasphemy.

Add to this the fact that there is no verse in the Bible that states that Jesus is really Michael.

Add to this the fact that Michael would NEVER receive for himself the declaration of Thomas in John 20:28.

And there are plenty of other Scriptures that show and prove the Deity of Christ. This is just for starters.

And one of the BIGGEST points to make here is this: ALL of this has been explained to you before today, and the ONLY thing you've ever done is run away from it.
 
As usual, you are wrong. The word "firstborn" as used in Col. 1:15 has to do with supremacy. The contextual theme of Colossians 1:15-19 is that of the Supremacy of Christ. "Firstborn" is a Hebrew word having to do with rank, primacy, and supremacy. Vs. 15 is saying that Christ is the Supreme One over all Creation. That makes Him God. There is a different word for "first created", and that is the word Paul would have used if he wanted to convey the idea that Christ is a creation. He DOESN'T.

Even the JW masters admit that "firstborn" has to do with supremacy. “David, who was the youngest son of Jesses [sic], was called by Jehovah the “firstborn,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation” (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584; emphasis added).

And no - Jesus isn't Michael and Michael isn't Jesus. Here is John 14:8-9: 8 Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Question: Who is "the Father"? What/Who is being referred to by that phrase?
Obvious Answer: God Himself. Considering the context of who and what Philip is - a Jew - There is no other honest way to understand the phrase in Philip's request. This is not refutable.

Jesus, knowing full well who and what Philip is and the only possible meaning to his request, straightforwardly tells Philip, "If you've seen Me, you've seen Him. If you've seen me, you've seen God Himself." There is no other honest way to take that answer.
Jesus Christ openly declares that seeing Him = Seeing God Himself.

Christ tells Thomas the same thing in 14:7.
Christ makes the same open declaration about Himself in John 12:45.
As for John 17:3, Christ equates knowing Him with knowing God.
Christ equates believing in Him with believing in God in John 14:1.

JWs say that Jesus is Michael the archangel. No, that doesn't work, and it doesn't work BIG TIME. Here's why that's true:
Michael's name means "Who Is Like God?"
Obvious answer: NO ONE.
There is NO way that Michael would have made the claim for himself that Jesus makes in verse 9. He would have been...
a) going directly against the meaning of his own name, and
b) committing blasphemy.

Add to this the fact that there is no verse in the Bible that states that Jesus is really Michael.

Add to this the fact that Michael would NEVER receive for himself the declaration of Thomas in John 20:28.

And there are plenty of other Scriptures that show and prove the Deity of Christ. This is just for starters.

And one of the BIGGEST points to make here is this: ALL of this has been explained to you before today, and the ONLY thing you've ever done is run away from it.

Jesus isnt like God either. God did it all through Jesus. Jesus gives God all the credit. Acts2:22-1 Cor 8:5-6, John 5:30-- Prov 8
I say Thomas looked to the heavens when he said my God. He was accepting that Jesus came from the true God thus accepted God.
1 Thess 4:16--upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel--its his voice. Daniel 12:1--Its Michael who stands up for Gods chosen in the last days--Rev 6:1-the war in heaven, ( white horse= righteous war) Michael took that ride, but notice-he receives his crown= Jesus because Michael is Jesus. That ride continues until 1 Cor15:24-28)and Jesus is shown on that white horse in Rev 19:11-13( Armageddon)
 
Jesus isnt like God either. God did it all through Jesus. Jesus gives God all the credit. Acts2:22-1 Cor 8:5-6, John 5:30-- Prov 8
I say Thomas looked to the heavens when he said my God. He was accepting that Jesus came from the true God thus accepted God.
1 Thess 4:16--upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel--its his voice. Daniel 12:1--Its Michael who stands up for Gods chosen in the last days--Rev 6:1-the war in heaven, ( white horse= righteous war) Michael took that ride, but notice-he receives his crown= Jesus because Michael is Jesus. That ride continues until 1 Cor15:24-28)and Jesus is shown on that white horse in Rev 19:11-13( Armageddon)

Wrong again, keiw. First of all, your post does not honestly engage with the admission by your own JW masters regarding the word "firstborn" or with the Scriptures in my previous post that show quite clearly that Christ is God. And there are more Scriptures than just those examples.

As for your idea about Thomas, that is VERY obviously NOTHING more than imagination-based. Jesus was talking directly to Thomas at that moment, and Thomas' statement was "The Lord of me and the God of me", and he said that TO Christ.

Regarding 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, these are verses that JWs refer to in order to try to show that Jesus is really Michael the archangel. There are several problems with doing this: First of all, this view would contradict what Paul, John, and the writer of Hebrews say when they very clearly declare in their writings that Jesus Christ is God. No – That's not going to happen.

Secondly, the most obvious reading of the verses show that the verses are saying that there are several sounds that will accompany/come “with” Jesus when He returns. So, if you're going to say "Jesus comes with the shout of the archangel, so Jesus is the archangel" - which IS the JW argument - then for the sake of consistency of argument, you also need to say that "Jesus comes with the sound of a trumpet, so Jesus is a trumpet".

Thirdly – Keeping the historical/cultural context of the first readers of the Letter in mind, what's being described here would have been something they are very familiar with: In that time, when a king approached a city, trumpets blew and a herald announced his coming. There is NO good reason at all to not see the verses from the same perspective they did.

Fourthly, it is a BIG leap to go from "an archangel" to Michael the archangel. Last time I looked, even the perverted JW NWT renders the verse with "an" archangel. From what we read in Daniel 10:13, Michael is not the only archangel, but "one of" them.

Fifthly - and speaking of Michael - Michael did not have the authority in and of himself to rebuke Satan, according to Jude 9. But Jesus Christ did have that authority in and of Himself and did so in Matt. 4:10.



And, as before - ALL of this has been explained to you before today, and the ONLY thing you've ever done is run away from it.
 
Wrong again, keiw. First of all, your post does not honestly engage with the admission by your own JW masters regarding the word "firstborn" or with the Scriptures in my previous post that show quite clearly that Christ is God. And there are more Scriptures than just those examples.

As for your idea about Thomas, that is VERY obviously NOTHING more than imagination-based. Jesus was talking directly to Thomas at that moment, and Thomas' statement was "The Lord of me and the God of me", and he said that TO Christ.

Regarding 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, these are verses that JWs refer to in order to try to show that Jesus is really Michael the archangel. There are several problems with doing this: First of all, this view would contradict what Paul, John, and the writer of Hebrews say when they very clearly declare in their writings that Jesus Christ is God. No – That's not going to happen.

Secondly, the most obvious reading of the verses show that the verses are saying that there are several sounds that will accompany/come “with” Jesus when He returns. So, if you're going to say "Jesus comes with the shout of the archangel, so Jesus is the archangel" - which IS the JW argument - then for the sake of consistency of argument, you also need to say that "Jesus comes with the sound of a trumpet, so Jesus is a trumpet".

Thirdly – Keeping the historical/cultural context of the first readers of the Letter in mind, what's being described here would have been something they are very familiar with: In that time, when a king approached a city, trumpets blew and a herald announced his coming. There is NO good reason at all to not see the verses from the same perspective they did.

Fourthly, it is a BIG leap to go from "an archangel" to Michael the archangel. Last time I looked, even the perverted JW NWT renders the verse with "an" archangel. From what we read in Daniel 10:13, Michael is not the only archangel, but "one of" them.

Fifthly - and speaking of Michael - Michael did not have the authority in and of himself to rebuke Satan, according to Jude 9. But Jesus Christ did have that authority in and of Himself and did so in Matt. 4:10.



And, as before - ALL of this has been explained to you before today, and the ONLY thing you've ever done is run away from it.
The term -all creation proves it is speaking about the beginning. That is when all creation occurred at the beginning.
Michael kicks satans butt at the war in heaven. It was not time for him to confront satan in Jude.
 
Jesus isnt like God either. God did it all through Jesus. Jesus gives God all the credit. Acts2:22-1 Cor 8:5-6, John 5:30-- Prov 8
I say Thomas looked to the heavens when he said my God. He was accepting that Jesus came from the true God thus accepted God.
1 Thess 4:16--upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel--its his voice. Daniel 12:1--Its Michael who stands up for Gods chosen in the last days--Rev 6:1-the war in heaven, ( white horse= righteous war) Michael took that ride, but notice-he receives his crown= Jesus because Michael is Jesus. That ride continues until 1 Cor15:24-28)and Jesus is shown on that white horse in Rev 19:11-13( Armageddon)
You said, "Jesus is Michael the arc angel." I have a question for you. How come Charles Taze Russell stated that Michael the arc angel is to worship the Son of God Jesus Christ?

Just read the middle part of Russell's statement.

In Him,
james
 
The term -all creation proves it is speaking about the beginning. That is when all creation occurred at the beginning.
Michael kicks satans butt at the war in heaven. It was not time for him to confront satan in Jude.

Nope. The term "firstborn" doesn't have to do with time - I've already shown that. The term has to do with rank, primacy, supremacy.
Even your own JW masters admit to what I've said regarding the word "firstborn".
Nor do you engage with the Scriptures in my previous post that show quite clearly that Christ is God. And there are more Scriptures than just those examples. Your treatment of Thomas' direct declaration TO Christ in John 20:28 is totally imagination-based, and nothing more than that.
Nor do you engage with what's been shown regarding the verses in 1 Thess. 4.

So, your post is just one failure piled on top of another.
And this is "the usual" for your posts.
 
You said, "Jesus is Michael the arc angel." I have a question for you. How come Charles Taze Russell stated that Michael the arc angel is to worship the Son of God Jesus Christ?

Just read the middle part of Russell's statement.

In Him,
james

Because he only had error filled trinity translating to go by. Yet he uncovered many truths still. All through the years since then truths have been uncovered. He was the only man on earth to see the prophecy from Daniel occur in 1914--The establishment of Gods kingdom in heaven( Rev 6:1)-The prophecy was 2520 years from the removal of the last king in Jerusalem=607 bce-Gods kingdom would be established in heaven- 607 + 2520=1914--He stated in 1879--Peace will be taken from the earth in 1914)-Rev 6:4= ww1--The ride of the white horse at Rev 6:1=the war in heaven. Satan lost , was cast to the earth, he came angry, knowing his time was short-thus ww1--after ww1 millions upon millions died all over the earth from other things mentioned of the other 3 riders.
 
Nope. The term "firstborn" doesn't have to do with time - I've already shown that. The term has to do with rank, primacy, supremacy.
Even your own JW masters admit to what I've said regarding the word "firstborn".
Nor do you engage with the Scriptures in my previous post that show quite clearly that Christ is God. And there are more Scriptures than just those examples. Your treatment of Thomas' direct declaration TO Christ in John 20:28 is totally imagination-based, and nothing more than that.
Nor do you engage with what's been shown regarding the verses in 1 Thess. 4.

So, your post is just one failure piled on top of another.
And this is "the usual" for your posts.
The term all creation has to do with time. Its your failure because you listen to ones who do not know.
Jesus taught-The one who sent him= Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD-John 17:3--so again its you in error because you listen to error over Jesus.
 
Jesus isnt like God either. God did it all through Jesus.
Note John opens with the same phrase , “In the beginning was” (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν) which appears in Genesis 1:1 of the Septuagint [ the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures]. John’s following would have been familiar with this phrase, with the exception of who was in the beginning. In Genesis God alone is in the beginning. In John the Logos is in the beginning along with God but in John performs the same acts that God does in Genesis. Therefore, this beginning which was before all creation the Logos already existed, because again the very acts of creation in Genesis are note mention till vs. 3 in John.
I say Thomas looked to the heavens when he said my God. He was accepting that Jesus came from the true God thus accepted God.
You were not there. All we can and should go by is what was recorded. And John recorded that Jesus and Thomas were addressing each other. Nothing in the text hints to your idea.
Ambiguous ideas should never be introduced or accepted. Why? Because one can spin the text.

I could cite many verses in the NT where Jesus claims to be God, and you can counter with other verses where you claim that Jesus states He is not God. No where in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically “I am God.” But also nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically, “I am not God.” The next reasonable step would to search the remaining New Testament, to see if any of the NT writers plainly stated that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is not God. The evidence I am looking for is not a trail of premises that ultimately conclude to either support or deny the deity of Christ. I search high and low, and found no where in the New Testament where Jesus or the NT writers stated plainly and simply, that Jesus is not God, but I do find verses where it simply states that Jesus is God. If you have any counter versus where Jesus or the authors simply state that Jesus is not God, please submit.

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:(2 Pe 1:1).

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20:28).

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Tt 2:13)

1 Thess 4:16--upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel--its his voice. Daniel 12:1--Its Michael who stands up for Gods chosen in the last days--Rev 6:1-the war in heaven, ( white horse= righteous war) Michael took that ride, but notice-he receives his crown= Jesus because Michael is Jesus. That ride continues until 1 Cor15:24-28)and Jesus is shown on that white horse in Rev 19:11-13( Armageddon)
Fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
You are cherry picking and connecting the dots as it suits you. It fails against the backdrop of scripture and the immediate text. Just because your key words are found in the passages it is foolish to conclude that they are relevant.
 
The term all creation has to do with time. Its your failure because you listen to ones who do not know.
Jesus taught-The one who sent him= Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD-John 17:3--so again its you in error because you listen to error over Jesus.

This line of reasoning fails on multiple reasons.

If the Father is the one true God that would make Jesus a false God in Jn 1:1. You make Jesus out to be psychotic, claiming to be God and then denying it. Your argument might hold water if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20 , 21).
 
The term all creation has to do with time. Its your failure because you listen to ones who do not know.
Jesus taught-The one who sent him= Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD-John 17:3--so again its you in error because you listen to error over Jesus.

Nope. Even your JW masters - who were NEVER appointed by God - have admitted that the word "firstborn" does not have to do with time; it has to do with rank, primacy, supremacy. You are now going against what your JW masters have admitted to.
As for John 17:3, Christ equates knowing Him with knowing God. In 14:1, He equates believing in with believing in God.
And you continue to run away from the Scriptures in my previous post that show quite clearly that Christ is God. And there are more Scriptures than just those examples. Your treatment of Thomas' direct declaration TO Christ in John 20:28 is totally imagination-based, and nothing more than that.
And you continue to run away from what's been shown regarding the verses in 1 Thess. 4.

So, again - Your post is just one failure piled on top of another.
 
Note John opens with the same phrase , “In the beginning was” (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν) which appears in Genesis 1:1 of the Septuagint [ the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures]. John’s following would have been familiar with this phrase, with the exception of who was in the beginning. In Genesis God alone is in the beginning. In John the Logos is in the beginning along with God but in John performs the same acts that God does in Genesis. Therefore, this beginning which was before all creation the Logos already existed, because again the very acts of creation in Genesis are note mention till vs. 3 in John.

You were not there. All we can and should go by is what was recorded. And John recorded that Jesus and Thomas were addressing each other. Nothing in the text hints to your idea.
Ambiguous ideas should never be introduced or accepted. Why? Because one can spin the text.

I could cite many verses in the NT where Jesus claims to be God, and you can counter with other verses where you claim that Jesus states He is not God. No where in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically “I am God.” But also nowhere in the Gospels do we find Jesus saying emphatically, “I am not God.” The next reasonable step would to search the remaining New Testament, to see if any of the NT writers plainly stated that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is not God. The evidence I am looking for is not a trail of premises that ultimately conclude to either support or deny the deity of Christ. I search high and low, and found no where in the New Testament where Jesus or the NT writers stated plainly and simply, that Jesus is not God, but I do find verses where it simply states that Jesus is God. If you have any counter versus where Jesus or the authors simply state that Jesus is not God, please submit.

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:(2 Pe 1:1).

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20:28).

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Tt 2:13)


Fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
You are cherry picking and connecting the dots as it suits you. It fails against the backdrop of scripture and the immediate text. Just because your key words are found in the passages it is foolish to conclude that they are relevant.

Actually the one whom God created all other things through= Gods master worker of Prov 8--he gives all credit to God as the one who created all things as well as tells all he was created first. Thus= The Firstborn of all creation.
trinity translations are filled with proven errors.
 
This line of reasoning fails on multiple reasons.

If the Father is the one true God that would make Jesus a false God in Jn 1:1. You make Jesus out to be psychotic, claiming to be God and then denying it. Your argument might hold water if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , Thessalonians 1:9 and 1 John 5:20 , 21).

Your reasoning is faulty--small g god is not calling that one God, it means-has godlike qualities. Jesus never claimed to be God.
 
Actually the one whom God created all other things through= Gods master worker of Prov 8--he gives all credit to God as the one who created all things as well as tells all he was created first. Thus= The Firstborn of all creation.
trinity translations are filled with proven errors.

LOL! Proverbs 8 does not refer to Christ. The idea that it does is a JW falsehood. If you ever bother to READ Proverbs 9:1-3, "Wisdom" is a WOMAN.
 
Your reasoning is faulty--small g god is not calling that one God, it means-has godlike qualities. Jesus never claimed to be God.

Yes, He definitely DID, and I've provided Scriptures where He did, and the only thing your posts have done is totally and cravenly run away from them. That is the recorded posting history of all your posts on any thread you have posted on; and anyone can easily see this for themselves.
 
LOL! Proverbs 8 does not refer to Christ. The idea that it does is a JW falsehood. If you ever bother to READ Proverbs 9:1-3, "Wisdom" is a WOMAN.
I am speaking about Gods master worker--the one beside God during creation process, the one who tells you they need to listen to him. There is 0 doubt it is the being God sent to earth.
 
Yes, He definitely DID, and I've provided Scriptures where He did, and the only thing your posts have done is totally and cravenly run away from them. That is the recorded posting history of all your posts on any thread you have posted on; and anyone can easily see this for themselves.
Jesus said-the one who sent him= Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD--so no he did not claim to be God.
 
Back
Top