Who ever's alive at the time of the birth. The father, if he's not alive the mother, family. Jehovah named a few as well. What's your point? Have I missed a command in scripture that only the father could name the child? Do you have a point? Obviously you would like me to say something that your not getting from me, so how about you just say what you would like... I'm not a fan of game shows.
Hi Joshua: Yes, it was the Father who named his son. Who named Isaac, Jesus/Michael, John the B? It was not Gabriel, as he was the messenger who stood before the face of God. So it was Jehovah God who named his sons because they truly were his. He is not a thief, he is not like child services which take children who are not theirs for the flimsiest of reasons. No, he named his Sons. Isaac was his Son, Jesus/Immanuel/Michael was his Son and John the Baptist was his Son. You have to formerly have been a son of post fall Adam in order to be a new creation as a part of Jesus Bride. John was not a son of post fall Adam, but was God's Son, so even the least one in the Kingdom is greater than he is as they are a part of the same substance as their husband the Christ and John is not and never will be. Make sense? frank
No, I have no idea what you are saying. The terms "son" and "father" have multiple meanings. Are you trying to say any of these men (besides Christ) had a pre-human existence or will be coming from, or going to heaven?
Hi Joshua: Yes! I am. Sorry I did not answer sooner. I had to run a few errands for my sister who is sick and then I had to get ready for and then go to dialysis. frank
Hi Joshua: Perhaps now, you and others and perhaps even Utuna will finally understand what Jesus meant when he said at John 3:13..."Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven+ but the one who descended from heaven,+ the Son of man." If you look in an interlinear it will say "son of the man" not simply "son of man" which is critical in understanding this scripture. frank
Hi Joshua: I previously said, in answer to your question "Yes! I am." What part of that is ambiguous? Listen, you wouldn't understand my answer if I was Jesus and I am not Jesus nor do I pretend to be Jesus. The apostles understood not very much of what Jesus taught to them during his ministry and you are not the Apostles. They did not get it to much of a degree until the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. The same I fear will be true here. You and most here are locked for the most part into the theology of the Watchtower which some of their theology is correct, more is incorrect than correct. Wait for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and you will have a much better chance in understanding the depth of the wisdom in God's Word. I will not, I am fairly confident be able to teach you. Wait for the Holy Spirit of God. You will also start to understand what the Holy Spirit is as well. You have no idea at this point. I am not looking for an argument. Thanks for not offering one. Wait till the Holy Spirit is poured out and you will understand what you need to understand. frank out one last time
Ok, yesterday, while at work, I got to thinking about this thread and found something interesting. As the biblical account says, John was a man who received Holy Spirit, Elijah's spirit, in his mother's womb. Later, Jesus said that John was Elijah (Mat. 11:14). It stands to reason here that John wasn't really Elijah. Jesus was speaking on spiritual and allegorical grounds. Said otherwise, the Holy Spirit would give John what would be needed to accomplish a ministry similar to Elijah's. What struck me is that the Holy Spirit is at times given names (according to what it is poured out for) and considered/called as a person. We have here the case of Elijah but also the Paraclete in John 14:16, 26. In this latter verse, the Greek word "ἐκεῖνος" is used for "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU." That word is masculine singular and not neutral, which is "ἐκεῖνο". It means here that a person is intended. As a consequence, those who believe in the trinity have wrongfully concluded that the Holy Spirit is a real person but it is not more a real person in this case than Elijah is a real person in John's case. It all reminded me that at times, miracles are attributed to an angel in one Bible book whereas it is attributed to Holy Spirit in another. In the same vein, please read : "Also, with reference to the angels he says: “And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire.â€" - Heb. 1:7 "Making his angels spirits, His ministers a devouring fire." - Ps 104:4 Psalms 104:1-4 Since, however, 'aasaah with two accusatives usually signifies to produce something out of something, so that the second accusative (viz., the accusative of the predicate, which is logically the second, but according to the position of the words may just as well be the first, Ex 25:39; 30:25, as the second, Ex 37:23; 38:3; Gen 2:7; 2 Chron 4:18-22) denotes the materia ex qua, it may with equal right at least be interpreted: Who makes His messengers out of the winds, His servants out of the flaming or consuming (vid., on Ps 57:5) fire ('eesh, as in Jer 48:45, masc.). And this may affirm either that God makes use of wind and fire for special missions (cf. Ps 148:8), or (cf. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. 325 f.) that He gives wind and fire to His angels for the purpose of His operations in the world which are effected through their agency, as the materials of their outward manifestation, and as it were of their self-embodiment, (from Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.) Disclaimer : A few words now destined to those who aren't quick on the uptake and also in order not to waste time talking for hours about statements of the obvious and trivial things. I'm not saying that the trinity is true and/or that the Holy Spirit is a real person. I'm not saying either that the angels don't exist. I'm just saying it is interesting to consider how the Bible "plays" with words and concepts in regard to what is explained above. Thanks.
Please read : "Jehovah will cut off each one that does it, one who is awake and one who is answering, from the tents of Jacob, and one who is presenting a gift offering to Jehovah of armies.â€" - Mal. 2:12 (NWT) Mal 2:12 - ESV May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob, any descendant of the man who does this, who brings an offering to the Lord of hosts! Mal 2:12 - NKJV May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob The man who does this, being awake and aware*, Yet who brings an offering to the Lord of hosts! * Talmud and Vulgate read teacher and student. Mal 2:12 - KJV The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts. Mal 2:12 - CJB If a man does this and presents an offering to Adonai-Tzva’ot, may Adonai cut him off from the tents of Ya‘akov, whether initiator or follower. Mal 2:12 - NRSV May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob anyone who does this — any to witness or answer, or to bring an offering to the Lord of hosts. In the first Bible version quoted above (NWT excepted), it is talked about descendants in accordance with the Targum and Cyril of Jerusalem who both affirm that "the tents of Jacob" mean "the men of the people" and that they'll be cut off just like the memory of them through their lack of offsprings, hence the rendering similar to "the son and the grandson", since the latter ones were to keep the memory of their ancestors alive.
Please read : "And there was one who did not do [it], as he had what was remaining of [the] spirit. And what was that one seeking? The seed of God. And YOU people must guard yourselves respecting YOUR spirit, and with the wife of your youth may no one deal treacherously." - Mal. 2:15 This verse is the most obscure and the hardest to understand of the whole book of Malachi (in the MT, Massoretic Text). Mal 2:15-16 - NLT Didn't the Lord make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his*. And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth. * Or Didn't the one Lord make us and preserve our life and breath? or Didn't the one Lord make her, both flesh and spirit? The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Mal 2:15-16 - ESV Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union*? And what was the one God seeking[SUP]1[/SUP]? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves[SUP]2[/SUP] in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. * Heb. in it # Heb. the one 1 Or And not one has done this who has a portion of the Spirit. And what was that one seeking? 2 Or So take care; also verse 16
He chooses his servants from the four winds, out of the fire that is sin and death, that is the whole purpose of choosing humans as "messengers". Zech 3:1,2 "And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan was standing at his right hand to resist him. Then the angel of Jehovah said to Satan: “May Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan, yes, may Jehovah, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this one a burning log snatched out of the fire?†He didn't use angels as messengers to nations, he chose men. The angels were the spirits to the messengers for direction and assistance. The spirit within the men was simply in thought or intention of the previous person, such as Elijah. Hopefully this will help you start to see what I have been saying about Joshua/Zerubbabel, Moses/Elijah, in the time of the end.
I do believe Josh that Utuna has said that the words can apply to both angels and men as messengers to serve as Gods emmissaries to further his work ...I don't get the argument since Utuna has already said it can be applied to both ...
POP, you might have missed my response to Utuna, so I will re-post it. The idea that "messengers" could apply to physical angels as it pertains to the messenger in Mal 3:1 is based on human interpretation from the LXX combined with personal interpretation, the connection is not really there. My response to Utuna in post #9: "I look forward to your response to this question, for it is my opinion you have allowed the LXX, and your own preconceptions to influence you, and has led you down a path to believe that the first messenger is a physical angel from heaven in the time of the end when heavenly origin is never implied. While quite emphatically history shows the first fulfillments of this man were human. Below is a copied section from your posts and is clearly personal interpretation that has come from the influence of the LXX translators and personal opinion, and when one honestly reads the original text, these connections are not conferred. "Here, the Greek verb used is apostéllo and means "to send for a mission" and is very frequent in the LXX. The preverb ex- adds the meaning of expulsion, of dismissal like the repudiated wife in 2:16, as well as the shoot of an arrow (like the denunciations thrown at the priests in 2:2 and 2:4) and eventually, the sending of an emissary from a hideout so he appears in broad daylight, which is the case regarding the "angel who will oversee the path" in 3:1. The correspondency between apostéllo and exapostéllo did surely contribute in identifying this angel with Elijah through the connection between the verses 3:1 and 3:22, identification that we find established beyond any doubt in the NT. Thanks to the pun between "to fear" in Hebrew and "to be sent" (passive) or "to travel" (middle), the perfect priest is understood to be sent "from the face of (God's) name"; said otherwise, he was previously in the very presence of God. We see here that the term of angel is manifestly deserved. The Greek text increases here the supranatural nature given to this great sacerdotal figure. The tradition compares him to Phinehas or to Elijah. Here, the LXX indicates subtly that a perfect priest will come from heaven, and reinforcing the textual links between Ml 2:5, 3:1 and 3:22, it underlines the fact that this priest from the past may have an eschatological role."
Frankly Josh , that can apply to both men and angels , and as for the the coming of Elijah well its a free for all assumption that that is going to happen a second time. While I like to think the two witnesses will be two individuals with the power to manipulate nature . the weapons of our warfare aren't at this time "carnal" but in overturning fortresses of thought ...Mind you I love the tribulation movies with the guys slamming the surrounding with fire and brimstone , but frankly we are in conjecture mode as far as anything concerning the true presence of whom these two will be ... The initial great and terrible day of the Lord for the Jews was seriously back then. they got inspected , didn't pass the test and the whole nation was consequently thrashed a good one ...we can expect that also for the all those who now claim to be "Gods people" which includes not only JW's but all those other sects outside. Also while we might get close to understanding the prophetic word we could very likely find ourselves in the same place as those prior to Christs ministry who had a least some of the "facts of the prophecy" correct but missed it's point altogether . There can be no right or wrong in the interpretation at this time , just conjecture .. supposition to that which we would consider logical ...but frankly they expected a King and got a servant of the people ..Our expectations may be way off the mark as God has frequently confounded the people with "not what they expected" ..
I will let Utuna answer whether he still thinks that the first messenger in Mal 3:1 is meant to be a physical angel or not. His first posts in this thread denoted that and no doubt you have trusted the connection he has made, perhaps he will clarify if he still believes the first messenger is categorically an angel from heaven, or even as you say, "could be either human or angel". I know he wouldn't want to influence others toward an idea that may not be true. I do not even need this threads subject to prove the two are individuals, it is the literal reading in Rev, and Zech proves without a doubt that these two are two physical humans, Malachi simply confirms it along with many other sources. As to these two having powers over nature, I believe you make an assumption. If you notice the powers these two are said to have, they mirror the events in the trumpet and bowls. After looking at the picture of Rev as a whole one will see that their work in bringing truth to the earth also involves these events. It's no coincidence that the events in the bowls and trumpets contain the same powers the two are said to have, hence they are metaphors. As far as your statement here: "Also while we might get close to understanding the prophetic word we could very likely find ourselves in the same place as those prior to Christs ministry who had a least some of the "facts of the prophecy" correct but missed it's point altogether . There can be no right or wrong in the interpretation at this time." I would have to point out that understanding is not a light switch, it is a dimmer switch, some people are brighter then others.
Hi Utuna: I don't know how this expression is translated into french, but in situations like this my Dad would always say "your pissing up a rope", or "spitting into the wind". frank