“How does ‘the Word was a god’ fit with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God?”

[JesusFan]

But it does not say... as YOU have proved.... it never says.

While you are so busy idolizing the RCC's teachings, ask yourself this.

You quote " Both Father and son have personal names."

We all have read the YHWH from the old testament. We all have read the I AM, from the old testament. But the son was never given a name ...only called the Word.... until the incarnation.

Yours is a very weak proof of whatever you are tryig to proove.

While you are at it... try explaining the purpose of the Father, the purpose of the Son, and the purpose of the Holy Spirit....

I can think of one reason that as yet the Holy Spirit is not on the throne... CAN YOU??

CAN ANYONE?

Each Person of the Trinity has a defined purpose and position and role

 

[DavidTree]

But it does not say... as YOU have proved.... it never says.

While you are so busy idolizing the RCC's teachings, ask yourself this.

You quote " Both Father and son have personal names."

We all have read the YHWH from the old testament. We all have read the I AM, from the old testament. But the son was never given a name ...only called the Word.... until the incarnation.

Yours is a very weak proof of whatever you are tryig to proove.

While you are at it... try explaining the purpose of the Father, the purpose of the Son, and the purpose of the Holy Spirit....

I can think of one reason that as yet the Holy Spirit is not on the throne... CAN YOU??

CAN ANYONE?

tootles

 

[Keiw1]

The Holy Spirit is a Person

No it is not. Its Gods active force.

 

[Keiw1]

But it does not say... as YOU have proved.... it never says.

While you are so busy idolizing the RCC's teachings, ask yourself this.

You quote " Both Father and son have personal names."

We all have read the YHWH from the old testament. We all have read the I AM, from the old testament. But the son was never given a name ...only called the Word.... until the incarnation.

Yours is a very weak proof of whatever you are tryig to proove.

While you are at it... try explaining the purpose of the Father, the purpose of the Son, and the purpose of the Holy Spirit....

I can think of one reason that as yet the Holy Spirit is not on the throne... CAN YOU??

CAN ANYONE?

Michael is who God sent and was named Jesus as a mortal. So he does have a name in the OT.

 

[JesusFan]

No it is not. Its Gods active force.

So a force can speak, direct, inspire, be grieved , and can be blasphemed against?

 

[FreeInChrist]

Michael is who God sent and was named Jesus as a mortal. So he does have a name in the OT.

I understand the connection you’re making between Michael and Jesus, but I don’t see that conclusion as necessary from the text.

Even if we say Michael is an archangel...a chief angel...that still places him within the created order. But when Jesus speaks in Bible, He describes a relationship and glory that go beyond that.

For example, when Jesus Christ says, “glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed” (John 17:5), that points to a shared, eternal glory with the Father.....not simply the status of a high-ranking angel.

So if Michael were the only archangel and also became Jesus, that would mean a created being later shares in the eternal glory of God Himself. That seems to blur the distinction Scripture consistently makes between God and His creation.

Also, Scripture never directly states that Michael is Jesus, it treats them distinctly. Michael is described as one of the chief princes (Daniel 10:13), while Jesus is presented as uniquely the Son.

So to me, it’s a leap to move from “chief angel” to “the eternal Son of God,” especially when the descriptions of Jesus go beyond anything said about angels.

 

[DavidTree]

Michael is who God sent and was named Jesus as a mortal. So he does have a name in the OT.

Michael is an Archangel.

YESHUA HaMashiach is YHWH

 

[JesusFan]

I understand the connection you’re making between Michael and Jesus, but I don’t see that conclusion as necessary from the text.

Even if we say Michael is an archangel...a chief angel...that still places him within the created order. But when Jesus speaks in Bible, He describes a relationship and glory that go beyond that.

For example, when Jesus Christ says, “glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed” (John 17:5), that points to a shared, eternal glory with the Father.....not simply the status of a high-ranking angel.

So if Michael were the only archangel and also became Jesus, that would mean a created being later shares in the eternal glory of God Himself. That seems to blur the distinction Scripture consistently makes between God and His creation.

Also, Scripture never directly states that Michael is Jesus, it treats them distinctly. Michael is described as one of the chief princes (Daniel 10:13), while Jesus is presented as uniquely the Son.

So to me, it’s a leap to move from “chief angel” to “the eternal Son of God,” especially when the descriptions of Jesus go beyond anything said about angels.

Jesus is the supreme Creator, so would have created Michael

 

[FreeInChrist]

Jesus is the supreme Creator, so would have created Michael

According to @Keiw1 Jesus was Michael who became flesh. You, of course are correct but @Keiw1 will never accept the truth.

 

[JesusFan]

According to @Keiw1 Jesus was Michael who became flesh. You, of course are correct but @Keiw1 will never accept the truth.

JW very confused on who really Jesus is, as to them existed as Michael in heaven, became Jesus on earth, body died and became dust, and was raised up spiritually as Michael or as Jesus?