Jesus and Michael

[Space Merchant]

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please tell me who and when was collected manuscripts and decide that they are inspired or uninspired? Was that one person or more? Was that collector/s inspired while choosing text, letters, manuscripts, copies of manuscripts? 

If first original text has been inspired because original writer was inspired on what to write, was people who made copies and copies of copies also inspired and guided by same spirit who has been behind first writer/writing?  

Over the centuries there has been uninspired canons that some believed in only to discover such is false, this also goes for the case of the Bible itself, an example would the the changed, forged and or uninspired text that has entered the Bible around the 16th century, of such is still believed by some because it appears in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The hypocrisy is some translations are often attacked by Trinitarians as well as others among the mainstream, an example would be the AS, the NIV, and several others, of which some target for omitting verses from the Bible, this is the same case with the JW's translation of the Bible, granted they and many others had no choice but to adhere to the KJV years ago. I threw this information to Allen some weeks ago, I may as well make it known here to show that there is a total showing of hypocrisy by those who cry and rant about omitted verses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

As for the question posed, it is not a matter of who, anyone who knows the Bible's History knows exactly of what is being addressed, the Bible in it's original forum is of the 4th century source alone, although, some tried to challenge change with uninspired views only to be stopped by the church fathers, one of which I had made mention to you before Eusebius of Caesarea (ad 260/265 – 339/340).

That being said, as for The Book of Enoch, it is not Bible Canon, nor does it ever appear in the oldest source, to say otherwise makes the claim neigh impossible to prove because the truth is the truth. We know this because The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal text, also referred to as pseudepigraphic text meaning falsely attributed written works, for such texts that claim authorship when it has nothing to do with the true author, and or a work whose real author. Moreover, it covers the false ascription of names of authors to works, even to authentic works that make no such claim within their text whatsoever. But obviously, such is widely accepted by many, even though it is evident that such is incorrect in attribution of authorship may make a completely authentic text appear apocryphal (pseudepigraphic), thus why Textual and Literary criticism exist.

Now this book is falsely ascribed to Enoch and came about sometime during the 1st and or 2nd centuries B.C.E., it is a collection of extravagant and unhistorical Jewish myths, exegetical elaborations on the brief Genesis mention and references to Enoch. Therefore many man who takes and loves God's inspired Word will not be foolish to be take any apocryphal as inspired, thus such, this Book of Enoch, as well as Jubilee and Tomas, are uninspired and not Biblical Canon, but clearly it seems quite easy to fool a man nowadays, even back in those ancient times.

I also like to add that is 100% accepted by and consider as canon by such ones like The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, in addition to those of mainstream Christendom, and only them.

As for inspired and not inspired text, clearly in this domain you are still confused. The I am making a references to is inspired text vs. uninspired text in the Bible, namely verses that have been forged like 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16, or perhaps added man made verses such as Acts 8:37 and several others. Inspired text originates from the 4th century source ( Septuagint/LXX), while the uninspired came about in the 16th century, for such was added into God's Word thus making the confusion, granted that the KJV Bible was pretty much forced upon many people.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

⁹ But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”^[a]

² The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

Sorry, but my intellectual, spiritual and other qualifications can not see and are not able to explain what in this two verses is same or similar or different or opposite to each other in relation to subjects; Michael, Lord 1 and Lord 2 and Lord 3 and Lord 4. 

Then you may want to re-check of what you addressed on Jude 9. There is a good reason why I brought up Zechariah 3:2. And if you are still lost, cross-references can help you greatly, that is why I cited them for you. If that does not suffice, simply check here: https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Jude+1%3A9

That being said, I had already addressed that these verses are not just cross-references, but are parallel from each other, clearly we see this same person not in a position to rebuke the Devil in the presence of God, mainly in God's dwelling place. there are only 2 Lords (that alone should be obvious) being spoke here, hence the references, and the rest should be child's play on who has said what - this also goes for the one who was responsible for casting Satan and his demons out of Heaven.

But out of curiosity, however, which Bible Translation you are using? For I know only few translations to not make references to connecting verses and or cite places and or words in reference.

[Space Merchant]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If i understand this "principle" that means something like this: My college Mark, from work place (or he must not be my college from work, he can be from another Company inc.), was sent by Principle of the school and tell me; "Srecko, Mr. Principle said that you have to go to post office and send this letter. My respond (by Shaliach Principle) to Mark is; "Very well Sir Principle i do as you said to me Sir Principle" :))))

Shaliach means Sent and or to be Sent (sent one), and it's Strong's #7971. It is embedded in Jewish Customs and such was done and applied in God's use of angels and prophets.

Shaliach is more like this: Let us say you are a King, you send Rook to carry out a message and or an action in your name. You give him the message, tell the people of the Whale Tribe this: I Srecko Sostar demand you people to contribute to the Kingdom for we have helped you time and time again when you needed the help.

Rook, being sent by you, will say the exact same thing you have said, for this is what Srecko Sostar has said: I Srecko Sostar demand you people to contribute to the Kingdom for we have helped you time and time again when you needed the help.

Rook represents you, for you are his King, clearly having higher power and authority than Rook, in this sense, you are Rook's Lord, as or the message, of what you have spoken, Rook speaks of your Word which is coming through him. Moreover, the people we use in this example, The Whale Tribe, will understand this is not Rook's message, but yours and that this message is of your word, not his.

This is the same case with the Angels of God, the 3 men, for they appear, but God speaks through them, other times, it is an Angel carrying out what God had said, the same case can be made for Prophets, as well as Jesus, for he is not just a Prophet, but God's only-begotten Son, for Jesus did not come on his own or speak on his own, for it is God the Father who is conveying His purpose and will through Christ Jesus, the one of whom he had sent, Shliach.

Other than that, this custom is very strong among Jews today even, to some extent, Muslims, mainly the Shias. Only a few Christians apply this though.

[Srecko Sostar]

44 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

The Whale Tribe, will understand this is not Rook's message, but yours and that this message is of your word, not his.

Ok, but still not see why would Tribe, after heard the message, told to Rook; "Thanks Srecko Sostar, you are our King"?? Why they not speak as any normal today, and say; "Mr Rook tell to the King Srecko, your King and our King, thanks for your mercy, we will contribute and give to you all our money ....."

[Space Merchant]

@AllenSmith34 The Bible speaks of many nobles, Lords, princes and leaders, however among all of them there is but one who is the great one and the leader, this one is God's chosen one, and is above all due to authority and power given to him, in addition to this one's position as the Chief Angel. Archangel, however, is never mention in plural form, occurrences being 2-3 times I believe, and it is often in singular form. But that is correct, just as all of elohim are called gods and or godlike ones, even among them, such ones are called princes, leaders and nobles, but only one stands up among all of them.For Jesus, also being both Michael/Immanuel, has this title Prince of Peace, which tells us that the Christ/Messiah will be given this title, coming from Isaiah 9:6 in respects to the customs of the Jews regarding given names. The reason of this title -  because the authority, the government that God will place on his shoulders will be a peace without end.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Inspired text

--- in short and concise words, please explain me what do you mean by expression "inspired Bible text"?

[Space Merchant]

@Srecko Sostar My friend, that is because in ancient times that is how they spoke and how they understood things, that is what Shaliach means, the same applies to God having Angels, prophets and His Son who are his representatives and or spokesman, representing the Father, if you will, today, that in itself is refereed to Angelic Agency, since this has to do with God, Jesus and Spirit Beings.

Only a few practice such today, but try this in the middle of New York, people will look at you crazy, however, those in a position of authority tend to stick with this application, example would be the president of the US to those who sit on his table to carry out an action and or message, those who bring forth this message and or action are already recognized as to whom have sent them.

The example I made in response was basic, but the meaning is there. People and or a group understands such messages as such, we can take this same example in regards to Moses, for God spoke to Moses by means of the burning bush, we know an Angel was present and God spoke through that Angel, afterwards, Moses brought forth the message, the Israelite knew that what Moses was saying, was of God, granted these people were afraid of God to begin with, thus prompting Moses to be the first mediator in the Hebrew Old Testament.

[Space Merchant]

19 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

--- in short and concise words, please explain me what do you mean by expression "inspired Bible text"?

Inspired Text of the Bible itself that has not been changed, forged and or added, being of the oldest source and the only source of which we have of which the Bible originates from, it is considered inspired.

In a simple sense, the Word of God which has not been altered and or tampered with.

Example:

Original verse vs. Forgery

• Inspired Text 4th Century: For there are three that testify:
• Uninspired Text 16th Century: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

You can also look this up here to see who is using the inspired and or uninspired: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 John 5%3A7

Reason found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations#(16)_First_John_5:7-8

Original vs. Added Verse:

• Inspired Text 4th Century:  Does not exist because was not found in the oldest source
• Uninspired Text 16th Century: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

You can also look this up here to see who is using the inspired and or uninspired: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts 8:37

Reason found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations#(11)_Acts_8:37

This is why many in the past, even JWs come to the discovery of what the KJV translators had done, thus most revised translations remove and or omit uninspired text/verses from the Bible.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Expressions and conversations are sometimes misunderstood.

I remember being in a bar in England, I obviously being from America, because I was wearing a cowboy hat, and two somewhat large women were having a conversation that sounded like Scottish to me and they both had red hair, about something about the original Star Trek that interested me, so I sat down beside them and asked if they had ever met James Doohan, who played Scotty on Star Trek.

The taller redhead asked why I would think that?

I replied, because they were both Scots.

They replied "We're Wales ... Wales ... not Scots!"

I then asked if I could buy the two whales a drink.

I woke up on the floor with a lump on my head.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

My friend, that is because in ancient times that is how they spoke and how they understood things,

Of course. But if Bible is word of God, not of man and  "how they (man) spoke and how they (man) understood things", but a God's word, the letter to all humankind in all periods of time - Why He not inspired writers to writing words and sentences in a simple way to be understandable for all.

Or, if God's  intention is not for all to understand, but few who then would be religious leaders and interpreting "the truths" to the flock?   

[Space Merchant]

16 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Of course. But if Bible is word of God, not of man and  "how they (man) spoke and how they (man) understood things", but a God's word, the letter to all humankind in all periods of time - Why He not inspired writers to writing words and sentences in a simple way to be understandable for all.

Or, if God's  intention is not for all to understand, but few who then would be religious leaders and interpreting "the truths" to the flock?   

The Bible is the Word of God, thus making it inspired for everything written is inspired, moreover, some translations are done in respects to the oldest source. What is not inspired is what came about years upon years after the Word of God was made known. Example, no mention of Jesus saving an adulterous woman, John 7:53-8:11 (Pericope adulterae), yet moving on to the 16th century, such a passage is found in the translated Bible known as the KJV, the older source and the early Church made no mention of such an event taking place on the Mount of Olives. Unless you have a valid reason to profess that translators such as Sir Francis Bacon and others wrote what is inspired into the text when such has not existed to begin with?

God's intent is very clear and explicit, there is no reason to not understand God's Word of which we read in the scriptures itself. As for understanding, those who are religious and those who are not, the majority knows this, this goes for readers of the Qu'ran, who have studied the Bible and knows such, but there are those who know and hide the truth, trying to paint anything uninspired as truth when in reality it is not, the very reason why some Bibles omitted forgeries as well as  revert a verse back to it's original form.

God himself has said to not add to His Word as seen in the Torah/OT Deuteronomy 4:2 and even his Son spoke of this, that the scriptures cannot be broken and or nullified, John 10:35.

You'd be surprised of how much the mainstream, mainly those who speak of Jesus to be God, of how much they hide such information. But what to expect those who do not make the attempt to follow that of the early Church, the teachings and so forth, those that consider God's Laws to be a joke and or pushing others to abandon some Laws and or what is entrusted.

As for the flock that is of the Shepherds, they know this truth, mainly those among the flock of people who do the research on the Bible's original source vs. the later additions coming from a man-made source that God had no connection with. If you take the time to research Bible forgeries, that would answer many questions for you.

That being said, what I have said is true, for that is how things have been understood in those days, that is why I brought up the practices of such ones even God himself in Moses case, as with Abraham, and they are but two examples out of many.

[Space Merchant]

@AllenSmith34 Indeed, this is why it is always important to look at the translations, compare it to the source and the Strong's. I immediately see what the NLT version has done, for the original verse uses both 7223 and 8269.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 7/14/2018 at 9:19 PM, AllenSmith34 said:

This is one of the reasons I appreciate the Watchtowers understanding of Jesus and Michael.

Looking good.

"How many times is my brother to sin and I am to forgive him? Up to 33 times?

Nay, I say unto you, 'Up to 34 times, and beyond, as the need arises."