Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't change a word of anything. I was commenting on the grammar and syntax of Rev 1:1. I wasn't anticipating you were going to try to put on a little naive puppet show. Nothing I said changed. If you accept the unity of the text, then you have to accept that the author is identifying the individual in v. 1. As I said, the syntax could go either way, depending on whether the first genitive was an objective or a subjective genitive.
Yes, and that happened throughout the Old Testament. That's not a reference to the sending of the particular angel to the author of Revelation, it's a reference to previous showings. Notice the angel himself identifies himself as one of the servants along with the prophets. Your exegesis is presuppositional and naive. You obviously don't know the languages and are just leaning on the juvenile apologetics you find online and among lay Christians.
No, that's not what the text is saying. The angel of Rev 22:6 was sent to "his servants," not to the author of Revelation. It's a reference to others, and based on the angel's own identification as one of those servants, could refer to God's angel telling Christ's angel, if you wanted to read that much into it. You obviously like to read things into texts instead of just reading what's already in them.
LOL, it's going to get better, now O Daniel, are you still sticking to God generally have and send angels?. that's a ill statement, Generally God have and send, did not God make all the angels?. then they are his, but to show you who the Lord Jesus is again, listen,
Matthew 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the othe"
LOL, it's going to get better, now O Daniel, are you still sticking to God generally have and send angels?
Generally, yes. That doesn't mean exclusively, it means generally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101c
that's a ill statement, Generally God have and send, did not God make all the angels?. then they are his, but to show you who the Lord Jesus is again, listen,
Matthew 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the othe"
YES, "HIS" ANGELS, HE MADE THEM.
Not at all. Remember, Jesus was said to have been given all authority after his resurrection. Doesn't that include authority over angels? You're still just playing childish exegetical games.
Generally, yes. That doesn't mean exclusively, it means generally.
Not at all. Remember, Jesus was said to have been given all authority after his resurrection. Doesn't that include authority over angels? You're still just playing childish exegetical games.
LOL, you have made two major blunders tonight alone. you had to eat your own words, and you're untrustworthy with the truth. so see ya.
LOL, you have made two major blunders tonight alone. you had to eat your own words, and you're untrustworthy with the truth. so see ya.
I've not eaten anything whatsoever, and nothing I have said has had to be changed. You, on the other hand, have ignored numerous, numerous pieces of evidence and have instead just barked your naive and juvenile dogmatism. Now you're trying to play word games and are hoping you can fool people into thinking you've proven something by repeating the accusation without providing anything in the way of evidence.
CA, you're going from bad to worsts. listen from THOMAS, "My Lord", and my GOD", JESUS is the Lord GOD. get it?. Lord and...............and God. if not don't worry about it, (smile)
now with:
G4314 πρός pros (pros') prep.
1. forward to, i.e. toward
2. (genitive case) the side of, i.e. pertaining to
just don't use half of the definition use all of it. who is the WORD pertaining to in the genitive case? answer, GOD, the eternal Spirit
now, H430 אֱלוֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
1. gods in the ordinary sense. (False Idols), of men, see #3.
2. but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God
3. occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates
4. and sometimes as a superlative
see that word superlative above in the definition, of the highest kind, quality, or order; surpassing all else or others; supreme; extreme. this word describes our Lord to a tee. G2962 κύριος kurios (koo'-ree-os) n.
1. supreme in authority.
and the Greek G243 allos, is the kind, andthe quality of that SUPREME PERSON here, the Lord JESUS, GOD.
now go back to the drawing board and try something
when people look at us who are they suppose to see? Just us or Christ in us?
Same thing here, Thomas recognised Jesus and the Father in Jesus. That is way he says my Lord AND my God.
when people look at us who are they suppose to see? Just us or Christ in us?
Same thing here, Thomas recognised Jesus and the Father in Jesus. That is way he says my Lord AND my God.
GINOLJC, to all
2 pneuma, you said, “Thomas recognised Jesus and the Father in Jesus. That is way he says my Lord AND my God”.
are you saying that the Lord Jesus and the one whom you call the “Father” are not the same persons, yes or no?.
I want to be clear of what you’re saying before I ask my question, and make my point.
Generally, yes. That doesn't mean exclusively, it means generally.
Not at all. Remember, Jesus was said to have been given all authority after his resurrection. Doesn't that include authority over angels? You're still just playing childish exegetical games.
Uh oh,
According to 101C's argument the Archangel Michael is also God, created the (other) angels since he has "his angels" too; an angel is God?????
KJV Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
2 pneuma, you said, “Thomas recognised Jesus and the Father in Jesus. That is way he says my Lord AND my God”.
are you saying that the Lord Jesus and the one whom you call the “Father” are not the same persons, yes or no?.
I want to be clear of what you’re saying before I ask my question, and make my point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
