[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I see. But I thought that in one of your earlier posts you proved out of revelation that the Holy Spirit is actually the seven spirits. Because you said that when the seven angels spoke to the seven churches, at the end of each speaking you showed that it was, in fact, the Spirit's speaking i.e. let him that has an ear, hear what the Spirit is speaking to the churches, showing that the seven angels and the Spirit are the same.

But an angel is a spirit. So the spirit speaking to the churches doesn't have to be capitalized "Holy Spirit" but can be small letter "ministering spirit". What is interesting to me is, how is the Holy Spirit, singular, capitalized, related (or not) to the small letter, multiple, holy angels (spirits) of God? Remember where the spirit is speaking at the end of the Bible. The Spirit and the Bride say come. But when John tries to worship this spirit, it says, "Don't worship me, I am a fellow servant". So at least some instances of the word "spirit" it is not talking about the Holy Spirit but about ministering spirits.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But at least it would appear that we agree on one thing: that Jesus is NOT God, nor can he be God?

Well the Roman Centurion said, "I also am a man under authority". So was Jesus under authority, or was He equal with God?

And if the servants of the Centurion were obedient to him, who were the obedient servants that Jesus could just speak a word and the Centurion's servant would be healed? Jesus not only didn't say that the Centurion got it all wrong, he marveled that He had seen such faith.

So do we ignore the Centurion's speaking, to preserve our doctrines? Or do we critically examine our doctrines?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Like you said, he can't be both on the throne and sitting on his own right hand at the same time, can he???

I mean..nuts, right?

Jesus was the one who brought this up, not me. Jesus said, "How can David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying, 'Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make all your enemies a footstool at your feet' "? So Jesus is being logical here: How can we say "A" (The Messiah is David's son) if we accept "B" (David calls Him Lord).

So I wouldn't say 'nuts' but rather 'illogical'. If something has quality "A" and you accept that meaning of the word, then how can you ignore that same word elsewhere? What kind of thought world are you building?

So maybe Jesus was equal with God, then temporarily lowered himself, as a man, below God (remember where He said, "The day and hour nobody knows, not even the Son, but only the Father in heaven"), and then was exalted back to being equal with God?

Or was He as the Son always the LOGOS i.e. the Firstborn of all creation? Which is not, was not, and won't be the Father? If we understand the words "Son" and "Father" I lean towards the second understanding. It is more logical, to me.

But I know that to some people, examining doctrines critically is very challenging. They may find it insulting, i.e. 'nuts'. But I find that a doctrine that can't be challenged is a pretty weak doctrine. I would rather challenge it and see it survive.

Let me give an example. Jesus is Lord of all. I have examined this over and over again and the more I examine this man Jesus the more I admit that yes, He is the Christ of God. He is the One sent by God to convey all that God is, to us. "No one comes to the Father except by Me". All, to me, true. Because I have tried it.

Now, I am trying the Nicene Creed. That's all. That may seem nuts to you and many others, but I just like trying things. It is part of my nature. I like to think. I believe this brain was given to me by God. So I try to use it. But it may not be profitable to think aloud, in public. Some of them get alarmed.

I'll leave it with this, if I may. We have the Nicene Creed, established centuries after the writing of the Bible. How do you feel so sure that the Nicene Creed was guiding John the apostle as he composed the Apocalypse? If the Nicene Creed doesn't fit the text of scriptures, then let's try to understand why. Maybe John the apostle had something different guiding him, conceptually, as he composed. Maybe. It is a hypothesis.