Questions about JW’s

[creative111]

From the actual Tanakh



From the Hebrew:
26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
כווַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ:



Show me where every word is Capitalized?

Please read this and educate yourself, I just pulled it off google, I shouldn't have to baby feed you this stuff.

https://how-ocr-works.com/languages...e uppercase,for children and foreign learners).

 

[biker]

I'm sorry, what are my assumptions?

I don't think you get it, if your premise is false, everything that follows after is also false since it based on a false premise. You cant build a house on sand.

There were NO capitalised letters in Hebrew of Greek, ESSETIALLY EVERYTHING YOU READ WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS. Therefore to use ANY argument where words are shown as uncapitalised or capitalised is folly as its all based on MODERN scholar's understanding of the scriptures and not necessarily the first century Christians.

• When you see the word “lord,” written in all lower case letters, it is the Hebrew word אֲדוֹן (adon, Strong’s #113) and means “lord” or “master,” one who has authority over another. In the example above (Genesis 18:12) this word is a description of Abraham, Sarah’s “lord.”

What is the difference between lord, Lord and LORD? | AHRC
www.ancient-hebrew.org/god-yhwh/difference-between-lord-Lord-and-LORD.htm


This proves when it came to God the Hebrews DID CAP the beginning letter!

 

[biker]

Does Hebrew have uppercase and lowercase letters? - Quora
www.quora.com/Does-Hebrew-have-uppercase-and...
Yes, Hebrew has uppercase and lowercase letters

 

[biker]

Need to run but will be back for more of your interesting concepts.

 

[bluto]

Do you intend to answer the points I made that will aid in answering the questions you asked me?

Here there are again:

I showed you Hebrews 2:8 that states 'God subjected all things under man, and left NOTHING NOT subject to him', and stated that using your reasoning that 'nothing' means absolutely 'nothing', does it mean that God and the angels were subjected to man? <----- Please answer. If not, then does 'nothing' here mean absolutely 'nothing'? <----- Please answer

When it states Jesus is "first in all things" in Col 1:18, does the "all things" literally mean 'all things', as in, 'every single thing'? <--- Please answer. If so, then is Jesus the first murder? <---- Please answer

According to bible chronology, how long ago was Adam created, which would have been roughly the same time frame of the creation of the earth and universe right? How long approximately? I personally believe Adam was created approximately 6000 years ago.

In Hebrews 1:1-5, is the 'God' who is mentioned in v1 as having a Son ("his Son" v1), and being the 'Father' to this son in v5 ("
which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father") the first person of the trinity the Father? If so, then do agree with what the text says when it states 'long ago, God (namely the Father) spoke to the Israelites forefathers..but in the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son', that the Father spoke in OT times, but in the NT times spoke by means of his Son Jesus. ?

First of all I do have a life outside of Christian Chat and things to take care of. I will respond when I decide to do so, not when you want me to "jump" to your call. Now, I am not going to address Hebrews 2"8 because it's a distraction away from my question which you have yet to answer.

Since you teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" at John 1:1 according to the abomanation of the NWT why is He clearly identified as the creator of all things without exception at John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10 by His own Father and at Revelation 3:14?

You added words to the Bible at John 1:1, "a god" and at Colossians 1:16 "all other things" which you cannot explain to me what these so-called other things are. You stated you have been a JW for 25 years. I've been dealing with you people for almost 58 years, along with the Mormons. I also have a pretty extensive library of extremely old JW materials including 78 rpm records you guys used for witnessing in the 1940's or so. I know all your tricks and I know you consider me "a goat like one."

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[creative111]

• When you see the word “lord,” written in all lower case letters, it is the Hebrew word אֲדוֹן (adon, Strong’s #113) and means “lord” or “master,” one who has authority over another. In the example above (Genesis 18:12) this word is a description of Abraham, Sarah’s “lord.”

What is the difference between lord, Lord and LORD? | AHRC
www.ancient-hebrew.org/god-yhwh/difference-between-lord-Lord-and-LORD.htm


This proves when it came to God the Hebrews DID CAP the beginning letter!

• When you see the word “lord,” written in all lower case letters, it is the Hebrew word אֲדוֹן (adon, Strong’s #113) and means “lord” or “master,” one who has authority over another. In the example above (Genesis 18:12) this word is a description of Abraham, Sarah’s “lord.”

What is the difference between lord, Lord and LORD? | AHRC
www.ancient-hebrew.org/god-yhwh/difference-between-lord-Lord-and-LORD.htm


This proves when it came to God the Hebrews DID CAP the beginning letter!

Biker, you're really struggling to understand this and your clutching at straws.

What you sent me proves absolutely nothing but exactly what I said. The lord/Lord/LORD rule applies to the KJV Bible, it LITERALLY tells you this on the first line of the first paragraph of the website, if you took the time to actually read this you would've realized this. This is not a rule that applies to the original Hebrew or Greek, but ONLY for the vast more modern KJV bible and for some other MODERN DAY transliterations of Bible.

Next you try to use QUORA forum chats to prove your point! lol. But this again is just embarrassing for you because they're not even talking about ancient Hebrew but modern Hebrew! lol. Secondly, they go onto explain numerous times that there are no capitals or uncapitals in Hebrew, ONLY in the sense of cursive writing and even written in this sense all characters are the same size FOR MODERN HEBREW! There's no capitalisation in the sense of capitalising the first letter of a word and leaving the rest uncapitalised, they're always all the same.

You're literally clutching at straws in a futile effort to prove your nonsense. Ancient Hebrew and Kione Greek are ALL UPPERCASE. You are completely fooling yourself if you choose to believe otherwise.

Try look for actual reputable sources next time and not a simple questions and answer forums online when you attempt to educate yourself.

 

[biker]

If you have noticed, when you are reading your Bible in the King James Version (other versions will use these words similarly), you may have frequently come across the word “lord,” but you may not have noticed that this word is written three different ways: all lower case letters (lord), all upper case letters (LORD) and only the first letter in upper case (Lord). Each of these styles of writing the word “lord” identifies different Hebrew words.

Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? (Genesis 18:12, KJV)

And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: (Genesis 18:3, KJV)

And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; (Genesis 18:1, KJV)



It actually does state the Hebrew Word itself dictates if the English word should be all lower case, all upper case, or the first letter begins with upper case.

That proves there is a difference by what word is used.

So like I said, there is both lower and upper case in Hebrew!

 

[Ahwatukee]

Hi Ahwatukee! You have your "cults" mixed up. It's the Mormons who teach Jeus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. Mormon general authority Milton Hunter wrote a book called. "The Gospel Through the Ages" and said it on page 15, paragraph 2 or 3 I believe. I know because I have the book. Also other Mormon's said the same thing. Keep up the good work.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Hi Bluto!

My bad! You are correct! I always get the two mixed up. Yes, it is the JW's who believe that Michael the archangel is Jesus and the Mormon's who believe that Jesus is the spirit brother to Lucifer. Either way, they preach another gospel and believe in another Jesus. My original point being that, the JW's believe in another Jesus and another gospel. We can add Mormon's to that list, seeing that they are the group that believes that Jesus is the spirit brother to Lucifer.

Jesus is God who became a human being, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● John 1:18 . . No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god
who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained
him.

The Greek word for "only-begotten" in that verse is monogenes (mon-og-en
ace') which is also found in John 1:14, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9.
It's a combination of two words.

The first is mono, which music buffs recognize as a single channel rather
than two or four in surround sound stereo. Mono is very common; e.g.
monogamy, monofilament, monotonous, mononucleotide, monochrome,
monogram, monolith, monologue, monomial, et al.

The other word is genes; from whence we get the English word gene; which
Webster's defines as a biological term indicating a part of a cell that controls
or influences the appearance, growth, etc., of a living thing. In other words:
monogenes refers to one biological gene set rather than many.

Monogenes always, and without exception, refers to parents' sole biological
child in the New Testament. If parents have two or more biological children,
none of them qualify as monogenes because in order to qualify as a
monogenes child, the child has to be an only child.

Examples of monogenes children are located at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and
Luke 9:38.

So then, scientifically speaking, Christ is unique in that he is God's sole
biological offspring, while God's other sons are not; viz: they're placed as
sons, i.e. adopted. (Rom 8:15-16, Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:4-5)

FAQ: God literally fathered a child?

A: I think it's probably a bit more accurate to say that God literally co
fathered a child.

FAQ: How did he do it? Is there a Mrs. God? And who was the other father?

A: Jesus' conception, described at Luke 1:26-35, wasn't only miraculous, it
was a very mysterious collaboration of human and divine.

David contributed the human component. (Luke 1:32, Acts 13:22-23, Rom
1:1-3, and 2Tim 2:8)

God contributed the divine component. (Luke 1:35 and 1John 3:9)

Jesus then, is just as much God's progeny as he is David's; and just as much
David's progeny as he is God's.

FAQ: What about Heb 11:17 where Isaac is stated to be Abraham's
monogenes child? Wasn't Ishmael a biological child of his too?

A: At the time of the event recorded in the 22nd of Genesis, Ishmael was no
longer Abraham's son. Paternal laws back in that ancient culture allowed a
man to disown a son if the lad was born of a mother in slavery. The catch is:
the father had to emancipate the mother, which Abraham had already done
at Sarah's urging, and God's approval.

Now, here's the inescapable ramification:

Like reproduces its like. In other words: If Christ really is David's progeny,
then Christ is just as much a human being as David. In the same vein; if
Christ really is God's progeny; then Christ is just as much a divine being as
God.

To say that this is all very baffling, illogical, unscientific, and unreasonable
would be an understatement. In my mind's normal way of thinking, Christ's
rather odd case of mixed-species genetics is an outlandish fantasy that,
biologically, makes no sense at all. It's sort of like crossing an iguana with
an apricot to produce a reptilian fruit tree. But; the circumstances of Christ's
conception are in the Bible, so those of us who identify ourselves Christians
have got to accept it.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living god.

The Hebrew word for "living" in that passage is chay (khah'-ee) which first
appears in the Bible at Gen 1:20 where it speaks of aqua life and winged life.
Then it appears at Gen 1:24 where it speaks of life on land. It appears again
at Gen 2:7 where it speaks of human life.

Flora life is never spoken of as chay. So I think we can limit the kind of life
spoken of by chay as conscious existence; viz: sentient life.

Jehovah is called the living god something like fifteen times in the Old
Testament, and fifteen more times in the New.

I'm unaware of any other gods in the entire Bible identified as living gods;
not even the people of Psalm 82 to whom God said "You are gods".

Because of that; I think it safe to conclude that no other god is a living god.
In other words: labeling Jehovah as the living god is a way of saying He is
the only god that's actually eternal, i.e. always was, always is, and always
shall be. This has some serious ramifications because when speaking of
Christ, the Bible says:

● Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily.

The Greek word for "divine quality" is theótes (theh-ot'-ace) which means:
divinity

Seeing as how theótes is modified by the Greek definite article "ho" then
what we're looking at here in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity, but rather
the divinity. In other words: we're looking at the fullness of the divinity of
the living god.

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word spoken
of at John 1:1 is a god. However: the Word isn't just any god; no, the
fullness of the divinity of the living god dwells in the Word; viz: the Word is
a living god, i.e. the life that's in the Word always was, always is, and
always shall be.

● John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted
also to the Son to have life in himself.

When the Father granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father
has life in Himself, things got a bit complicated because unless Jehovah and
the Word are somehow different names for the same personage; there is
now one too many living gods out there.
_

 

[Sipsey]

.
● Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living god.

The Hebrew word for "living" in that passage is chay (khah'-ee) which first
appears in the Bible at Gen 1:20 where it speaks of aqua life and winged life.
Then it appears at Gen 1:24 where it speaks of life on land. It appears again
at Gen 2:7 where it speaks of human life.

Flora life is never spoken of as chay. So I think we can limit the kind of life
spoken of by chay as conscious existence; viz: sentient life.

Jehovah is called the living god something like fifteen times in the Old
Testament, and fifteen more times in the New.

I'm unaware of any other gods in the entire Bible identified as living gods;
not even the people of Psalm 82 to whom God said "You are gods".

Because of that; I think it safe to conclude that no other god is a living god.
In other words: labeling Jehovah as the living god is a way of saying He is
the only god that's actually eternal, i.e. always was, always is, and always
shall be. This has some serious ramifications because when speaking of
Christ, the Bible says:

● Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily.

The Greek word for "divine quality" is theótes (theh-ot'-ace) which means:
divinity

Seeing as how theótes is modified by the Greek definite article "ho" then
what we're looking at here in Col 2:9 isn't nondescript divinity, but rather
the divinity. In other words: we're looking at the fullness of the divinity of
the living god.

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word spoken
of at John 1:1 is a god. However: the Word isn't just any god; no, the
fullness of the divinity of the living god dwells in the Word; viz: the Word is
a living god, i.e. the life that's in the Word always was, always is, and
always shall be.

● John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted
also to the Son to have life in himself.

When the Father granted the Son to have life in himself just as the Father
has life in Himself, things got a bit complicated because unless Jehovah and
the Word are somehow different names for the same personage; there is
now one too many living gods out there.
_

Sounds good to me! I’ve heard the use of the word translated “I am” or “I am the I am” can be simply translated as “I am the real One”, or “The one that really exists” vs the fake Ones.

 

[Ahwatukee]

.
● Jer 10:10 . . Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living god.

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that the Word spoken of at John 1:1 is a god.

If by "both sides of the aisle" you mean true Christians and the JW's, no true believer and contender of God's word accepts the rendition of 'a god.' That aisle is one-sided.

John 1:1 does not say "a god" but says "was God." 'a god' was added by the JW's and is a false interpretation to support their belief that Jesus is not God. " Also, the word 'god' in the verse is not in the lower case.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Or as the Interlinear has it:

- -En ------ arche --- en - ho - Logos - kai - ho - Logos - en - pros ton - Theon - kai - Theos - en - ho-- Logos
In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word

Jesus as the Rider on the White Horse returning to end the age is the Word of God:

He has a name written on Him that only He Himself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is The Word of God.

 

[fredoheaven]

P


Yes they are, even the writer of Hebrews makes it clear they are. In psalms 8:5 is states "You have made them a little lower than the elohim and crowned them with glory and honor", the term elohim in Hebrew means "GOD", the writer of Hebrew 2:7 quotes Psalms 8:5, notice how he translates is:

(Hebrews 2:7) You made him a little lower than angelous; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands.

The word "angelous" is the Greek word for angels, which means the writer of Hebrews read and knew the term 'elohim' was used in Psalms 8:5 but understood it to be in reference to angels, hence the reason why he used the word 'angel' and not elohim in Ps 8:5, its also the reason why many bibles render the term 'Elohim' in Psalms 8:5 as 'angels'. So by you saying "Angels aren't called Elohim/GODS" you are disagreeing with many translators and even the inspired writer of Hebrews.

The Hebrew word ‘elohim’ can be translated in many ways that would depend on the context. Elohim can be ascribed to the angels as in the passage of Psalms 8:4-6. Elohim can also be translated as judges as well, as in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8; and twice in Exodus 22:9 or gods in many occasions. The bible is the written Final Authority and not you or other religious organizations. For the case, you have limited the flexibility of translating ‘elohim which means in all upper-case letter “GOD” to push or justify your claimed. It is such a nice thing that you even mentioned Hebrews 2:7 which is in fact, that the reality of flexible translation of the Hebrew Elohim into another language, now it’s a Greek and was translated as ‘angels’ by the writer of the book of Hebrews and that is the vey fact refutes your claimed as it's sole meaning ‘GOD’. If it is god, gods, God or GOD, as in the NT then it must refer to Theos and not angelous.

 

[fredoheaven]

Nowhere have I expressed that when other beings are called GOD who are not the 'one God' that they themselves are the 'one God' by being referred by the term GOD. I've always maintained the bible can and does use the term God with different sense at times, it having a secondary lesser sense when applied to people who are not the 'one God'. You also nowhere answered my quesiton but just highlighted that the people Jesus were speaking to were not the 'one God', which I myself also believe. So my question still remains,
No, Jesus did not say he and the Father were one God, he simply said he and the Father were one, there was nothing about being one in deity mentioned in the verse. In fact, John 17:20,21 also highlights that followers of Christ be one 'just as' he and the Father are one, so John 10:30 definitely cannot be in relation to one in deity, or else followers of christ are also God since they are one with them 'just as' they are one.

(John 17:21,22) "..that they [my followers] all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.."

Perfect for bending the scriptures about 'one God', your tenor speaks of titular description when it is numerical description. Absolutely, there is only one God the Father that could not be Jesus being the Son. The two are distinct. So, basically there's no issue, but you make an issue out of it and that gets your problem.
.

 

[fredoheaven]

B

You're literally clutching at straws in a futile effort to prove your nonsense. Ancient Hebrew and Kione Greek are ALL UPPERCASE. You are completely fooling yourself if you choose to believe otherwise.

Try look for actual reputable sources next time and not a simple questions and answer forums online when you attempt to educate yourself.

I have bolded and underlined "Koine Greek are ALL UPPERCASE", once again this is a false notion. Many of the Greek extant manuscripts were written in small case letters. Your clutching straws...

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Jesus Christ is a priest-- not just another rank and file priest, rather: a high
priest

● Heb 5:10 . . He has been specifically called by God a high priest

High priesthood is an office that's never been held by angels. It's always
been held by human beings; specifically male human beings.

● Heb 5:1 . . . For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in
behalf of men over the things pertaining to God

● Heb 5:4 . . Also, a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but only
when he is called by God, just as Aaron also was.

Christ, then, is a mediator between the supreme being and the human being;
specifically the mediator seeing as how the high priesthood is a solo position,
i.e. held by one man at a time.

● 1Tim 2:5 . . There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a
man, Christ Jesus.

The Greek word translated "men" and "man" in that verse is derived from
anthropos (anth'-ro-pos) —a common word for humans in the New
Testament; which is why that passage doesn't say the one mediator is an
angel Christ Michael. No it doesn't say an angel Christ Michael; rather, it
says a man Christ Jesus; who everyone knows to be a human being rather
than an angelic being by the same name.

A search of the entire New Testament for the angel Michael turns up but two
references: Jude 1:9 and Rev 12:7. That angel is nowhere in the gospels,
nowhere in Acts, and nowhere in the epistles other than Jude. If that angel
is so all-fired important; then why is it so marginalized? Even the Society
itself is a bit perplexed as to why the name of an angel so highly revered in
their theology is nigh unto absent in the New Testament.

The Society claims that the names Jesus and Michael are interchangeable;
but that's the most ridiculous case of apples and oranges on record; not to
mention a very serious case of identity fraud. Even if an angel had once
existed as a human being named Jesus; it no longer does. Now it exists as a
an angelic being named Michael. The two names aren't interchangeable
because the one name denotes a human being and the other name denotes
an angelic being. Go ahead; search the New Testament and see how much
luck you have finding somebody's name hyphenated like this: Jesus-Michael
Christ. You won't because the Society's theology is an utter fantasy.

Oh what a wicked web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
-- Sir Walter Scott --

That poem rings so true. Once Charles T. Russell and/or Joseph F. Rutherford
declared that Michael the angel, and Jesus Christ the human, are the same
person; they were faced with the Herculean task of forcing the Bible to
agree; and that was quite a challenge; which was accomplished by means of
clever blends of fiction, sophistry, half-truths, semantic double speak, and
humanistic reasoning.
_

 

[bluto]

Here is a photo of what Russell actually said. <a href="

http://imgur.com/y6dOdXe

"><img src="

http://imgur.com/y6dOdXe

" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

 

[garee]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Or as the Interlinear has it:

- -En ------ arche --- en - ho - Logos - kai - ho - Logos - en - pros ton - Theon - kai - Theos - en - ho-- Logos
In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word

Yes the word was with God whose power worked in the Son of man .The Son of man Jesus a prophet and apostle did the will of the father and not the will of the flesh which said his own flesh profits for nothing.

He lived in the same kind of earthen body of death. yet without sin Again doing the will of the father and not his own corrupted flesh .


2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

No such thing as holiness of the flesh . (Catholic dogma and JW ) Holiness as power of the Spirit yes it did profit those born again.

 

[bluto]

And speaking of Michael the arc angel. The following is what Russell orginally said in an 1879 Watchtower which I personally have. "Let all the angels of God worship him"; (that must include Michael, the chief ange, hence Michael is not the Son of God) and the reason is because he has, "by inheritance obtained a more excellen Name than they."

These are his actual words. So what happened? Russell received new light and came to the (wrong) conclusion that Jesus was or is Michael. This now means that at Hebrews 1:6 where God the Father is speaking and telling all the angels to worship Jesus is wrong/lying.

Also, and by extension God the Father must also be wrong/lying at Hebrews 1:8, "But of the Son He/God the Father says, "Thy Throne O God is forever and ever." It does not say "Thy Throne O "a god" is forever and ever.

And look at Hebrews 1:10, "Thou Lord, in the beginning Didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands." I don't see in this text anything about the Son creating "other" things here? What are these "other" things that Jesus was suppose to have created?

And your exactly right, Jesus is not Michael and Michael is not Jesus. Not even by name and not even in reality. Since the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is "THE" creator, how could He be Michael who is one of His creations? Keep up the good work.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[garee]

And speaking of Michael the arc angel. The following is what Russell orginally said in an 1879 Watchtower which I personally have. "Let all the angels of God worship him"; (that must include Michael, the chief ange, hence Michael is not the Son of God) and the reason is because he has, "by inheritance obtained a more excellen Name than they."

These are his actual words. So what happened? Russell received new light and came to the (wrong) conclusion that Jesus was or is Michael. This now means that at Hebrews 1:6 where God the Father is speaking and telling all the angels to worship Jesus is wrong/lying.

Also, and by extension God the Father must also be wrong/lying at Hebrews 1:8, "But of the Son He/God the Father says, "Thy Throne O God is forever and ever." It does not say "Thy Throne O "a god" is forever and ever.

And look at Hebrews 1:10, "Thou Lord, in the beginning Didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands." I don't see in this text anything about the Son creating "other" things here? What are these "other" things that Jesus was suppose to have created?

And your exactly right, Jesus is not Michael and Michael is not Jesus. Not even by name and not even in reality. Since the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is "THE" creator, how could He be Michael who is one of His creations? Keep up the good work.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Another way at looking at it. The Father has a more excellent name then the Son . But greater as position or power . Jesus is an apostle as a messenger sent of the father. Messenger and angel are one in the same . In that way we should be careful when sitting with a stranger even on this message board . Messenger, angel sent with the work of God. . apostles.

Many angels here