Zone1 Hebrews 1:8 says Jesus is God

[The Duke]

I couldn’t disagree more. See my previous post for why.

Not that you're wrong, I just don't want to see the previous post.

 

[GLASNOST]

Really? You are such a source of wisdom, except when you're not.

when ≠ that

 

[ding]

Really? You are such a source of wisdom, except when you're not.

You will be more successful in life if you are curious instead of judgmental. Marinate on it.

 

[ding]

when ≠ that

Often times ignorance is insolent.

 

[HaShev]

Hebrews 1:8 says the Son, "Yourthrone, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Now since the scrolls 4Q471 XVII says the Kingdom is Michael's Kingdom and the bible and people know Michael as the angel of Righteousness then Hebrews 1:8 is obviously calling Michael the SON.
Now to back this up also in chapter one:the son is placed higher then the angels (top Main)=arch. YET, Jesus is made lower then angels and Michael in the rest of the book of Hebrews, thus the son can't be Jesus and must be Michael.(Heb 2:7,9) You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 9 but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels,Hebrews 5:6, 5:10, & 6:20 say Jesus is after the Order of Melchizedek(another definition name for Archangel Michael meaning king of righteousness)Undeniably means Michael is called his son. But wait there's more: verses outside Hebrews that reveal this:The Bible calls the angels God's "sons." (Job 1:6)Who is God's main or arch son then?ACCORDING TO TRADITIONS BEFORE THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY1QM v, 1-2) States: "God himself is a supreme agent of salvation and afterhim in importance is Michael."(IQ28b Blessings) V.....20)"The Blessings of the Prince of the Congregation"states he will establish the Kingdom for his people forever...*(more proof for Hebrews chapter one being about Michael as the son).In JOHN 5:22 "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto THE SON."Then this verse is calling Michael the son , because Michael is mentioned to be the Judge in scripture and tradition.

1 John 3:08 clearly describes Michael as the Son who removes the devil, otherwise they have to admit they place Jesus (morning star)in
Michael (Evening Star)roles as
a "thief of the Night"

 

[ding]

Hebrews 1:8 says the Son, "Yourthrone, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Now since the scrolls 4Q471 XVII says the Kingdom is Michael's Kingdom and the bible and people know Michael as the angel of Righteousness then Hebrews 1:8 is obviously calling Michael the SON.
Now to back this up also in chapter one:the son is placed higher then the angels (top Main)=arch. YET, Jesus is made lower then angels and Michael in the rest of the book of Hebrews, thus the son can't be Jesus and must be Michael.(Heb 2:7,9) You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 9 but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels,Hebrews 5:6, 5:10, & 6:20 say Jesus is after the Order of Melchizedek(another definition name for Archangel Michael meaning king of righteousness)Undeniably means Michael is called his son. But wait there's more: verses outside Hebrews that reveal this:The Bible calls the angels God's "sons." (Job 1:6)Who is God's main or arch son then?ACCORDING TO TRADITIONS BEFORE THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY1QM v, 1-2) States: "God himself is a supreme agent of salvation and afterhim in importance is Michael."(IQ28b Blessings) V.....20)"The Blessings of the Prince of the Congregation"states he will establish the Kingdom for his people forever...*(more proof for Hebrews chapter one being about Michael as the son).In JOHN 5:22 "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto THE SON."Then this verse is calling Michael the son , because Michael is mentioned to be the Judge in scripture and tradition.

1 John 3:08 clearly describes Michael as the Son who removes the devil, otherwise they have to admit they place Jesus (morning star)in
Michael (Evening Star)roles as
a "thief of the Night"

Sounds like you are admitting Jesus was an historical person.

 

[HaShev]

Sounds like you are admitting Jesus was an historical person.

nope, the Bible Ezekiel 28 calls the son of perdition an "Image of a man" not an actual historical man.

 

[hobelim]

nope, the Bible Ezekiel 28 calls the son of perdition an "Image of a man" not an actual historical man.

Which would fit perfectly the description of the imaginary virgin diddling trinity that became a substitute Jesus, an edible mangod, conjured from the depths of a Roman hell and unleashed on the world in 325CE, the Antichrist, created in the image and likeness of Mithras, with all the attending signs and powerful "miracles of the lie" that scripture is to be taken literally.

This fake counterfeit Jesus, created by Rome, does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.

 

[ding]

nope, the Bible Ezekiel 28 calls the son of perdition an "Image of a man" not an actual historical man.

And yet you are comparing OT passages to NT accounts of Jesus and arguing Jesus wasn’t what the NT claimed but Jesus is what the OT claimed.

I don’t believe you understand the consequences of such a comparison.

 

[ding]

Which would fit perfectly the description of the imaginary virgin diddling trinity that became a substitute Jesus, an edible mangod, conjured from the depths of a Roman hell and unleashed on the world in 325CE, the Antichrist, created in the image and likeness of Mithras, with all the attending signs and powerful "miracles of the lie" that scripture is to be taken literally.

This fake counterfeit Jesus, created by Rome, does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.

Setting your nazi like disrespect for people of different faiths aside, Everything believed about Jesus began immediately after his resurrection. Jesus wasn’t invented by Rome 300 years later. That’s a fairytale. History has recorded what the first Christians believed and that is irrefutable.

 

[hobelim]

Everything believed about Jesus began immediately after his resurrection. Jesus wasn’t invented by Rome 300 years later. That’s a fairytale. History has recorded what the first Christians believed and that is irrefutable.

The disciples knew that Jesus cured a blindness of perception, not sight. Thats how they knew Paul was a fraud, pretending to be blind, fumbling around for a few days, then claiming to be healed by Jesus. A miracle! Whoah!

What a joker!

The bullshit story created by Rome is that the miracles, signs that Jesus was the messiah, are to be taken literally

 

[GLASNOST]

The disciples knew that Jesus cured a blindness of perception, not sight. Thats how they knew that Paul was a fraud, pretending to be blind, fumbling around for a few days, and then claiming to be healed by Jesus.

What a joker!

The bullshit story created by Rome is that the miracles, signs that Jesus was the messiah, are to be taken literally

Yep! Jesus came to me in a dream and he told me to only take stories literally when they are published in the MSM or leaked from the CIA.

 

[ding]

The disciples knew that Jesus cured a blindness of perception, not sight. Thats how they knew Paul was a fraud, pretending to be blind, fumbling around for a few days, and then claiming to be healed by Jesus.

What a joker!

The bullshit story created by Rome is that the miracles, signs that Jesus was the messiah, are to be taken literally

History has recorded that the core beliefs began immediately after the resurrection.

 

[hobelim]

History has recorded that the core beliefs began immediately after the resurrection.

And did you forget to put on your thinking cap when you read the stories? Tsk tsk. Don't worry. I got you covered.

I installed an anti malware program through your eyes right into your addled mind. So relax and let it clear out the crap that is causing your brain to freeze and malfunction making your attempts to understand scripture pointless.

No need to thank me.

 

[ding]

And did you forget to put on your thinking cap when you read the stories? Tsk tsk. Don't worry. I got you covered.

I installed an anti malware program through your eyes right into your addled mind. So relax and let it clear out the crap that is causing your brain to freeze and malfunction making your attempts to understand scripture pointless.

No need to thank me.

I absolutely did think through it all. You have a very weird secularized interpretation of the OT and NT. I say very weird because you are the only one in the world with this view.

History has recorded Christianity beginning immediately after the resurrection of Christ. The 24,000 written manuscripts explain why they did so.

 

[hobelim]

You have a very weird secularized interpretation of the OT and NT. I say very weird because you are the only one in the world with this view.

Yes. Something so simple has escaped the notice of everyone who has read the Bible for thousands of years, believer and unbeliever, until now and now because I revealed it its impossible not to see. Pretty amazing isn't it?

Just goes to show that God reigns over the minds of man, either granting or denying comprehension, life itself.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying, "no one can come to me unless it has been granted him by the Father."

History has recorded

History my ass. If someone wrote 2000 years ago that the dead came out of their graves it would either be a metaphor or a lie. There is no possibility that it was literally true. If you don't believe me I couldn't care less.

Many facts in history are myths misinterpretations or lies like Catherine the Great died having sex with a horse.

Stunad!

 

[ding]

Yes. Something so simple has escaped the notice of everyone who has read the Bible for thousands of years, believer and unbeliever, until now and now because I revealed it its impossible not to see. Pretty amazing isn't it?

Just goes to show that God reigns over the minds of man, either granting or denying comprehension, life itself.

Thats what Jesus meant by saying, "no one can come to me unless it has been granted him by the Father."


History my ass. If someone wrote 2000 years ago that the dead came out of their graves it would either be a metaphor or a lie. There is no possibility that it was literally true. If you don't believe me I couldn't care less.

Many facts in history are myths misinterpretations or lies like Catherine the Great died having sex with a horse.

Stunad!

You must be either really special or really full of yourself. A much more logical explanation is that you twist things to serve your purpose. It’s comical.

 

[HaShev]

Which would fit perfectly the description of the imaginary virgin diddling trinity that became a substitute Jesus, an edible mangod, conjured from the depths of a Roman hell and unleashed on the world in 325CE, the Antichrist, created in the image and likeness of Mithras, with all the attending signs and powerful "miracles of the lie" that scripture is to be taken literally.

This fake counterfeit Jesus, created by Rome, does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.

Bingo, Ezekiel says that image walked the garden of Eden in which Mithras image was born out of and flourished that Ancient Persia region where the 2 rivers cross.
Ironically It was a Roman soldier named "Lucius" which brought Mithraism to Tarsus and helped initiate the spread in Rome, the Bascilica sickly man cross was already there when it was a Mithra temple, just repurposed the predated cross as was the Pope
(John Paul ll) skinny sickly man cross he carried was also a Mithraic cross.

 

[HaShev]

And yet you are comparing OT passages to NT accounts of Jesus and arguing Jesus wasn’t what the NT claimed but Jesus is what the OT claimed.

I don’t believe you understand the consequences of such a comparison.

the OT tells you there would be 2 messiahs and not to follow the fallen first one, so what did you do, you followed the first one hindering the Shiloh (rightful one).

 

[shimon]

nope, the Bible Ezekiel 28 calls the son of perdition an "Image of a man" not an actual historical man.

Image of a man...Ironically this image was given breath and a life in the pages of a book.. No different then idol worshipping an image made of stone or wood or anything under heaven...