Siddhashunyata
...we realize that the WTBTS is teaching two mutually exclusive doctrines about the soul, a major doctrinePerhaps you would favor the board with an explanation of just how that proves to be the case.
Yadirf
Posts by Yadirf
-
130Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
SS
"To be or not to be, that's the real question here." (Probably didn't quote that with precision, but it's close enough I suppose.)
Well, the only thing that i can see that matches all your terms, and includes all the meanings, is what is popularly called spirit. An entity that includes thoughts/thinking, memories, feelings which would make it unique from a generic 'life force'. This spirit, then, is infused into the embryo at conceprion or sometime after that, making it a person as compared to a lump of protoplasm.
I think that your reliance upon what things are "popularly called" is perhaps what accounts for your not being able to grasp the point here. No I'm not referring to the "spirit" as commonly understood by Christendom to mean something that lives inside a person and which seperates at death to live on.Spirit would be an organised energy form. As you know, energy cannot be destroyed.
Look back at your list, #3.
3.A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.
Michael the archangel is a "living being", is he not? Therefore, he is a "life". True? The person or life which Michael is was once transferred to the womb of Mary, but of course not in the form of an angel though.Yadirf
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
Faithful2Jah
Dead people can be brought "back to life" but not nonexistent people.
How can that be the case when people were "nonexistent" before they were created. If God can bring us into existence in the first place, why is it too much of a feat for him to bring us out of nonexistence?Yadirf
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
bluesapphire
Wow! Jan you just put into words what I couldn't for so many years. This is going to my permanent file.
And, in your own words, what exactly would that be, may I ask?Yadirf
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
Faithful2Jah
Because without some continuity nothing is "the same."
And so you feel that if you were to pass into nonexistence and then later come back to life it wouldn't be the same you. If not you then who would it be? Cannot God recreate a person without the result being a different person?So what you're really getting at is that you hold to the belief that the soul is something immortal, right?
Yadirf
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
SS
From the following definitions, to help me understand, can you list the ones that apply to what was transferred?
You really have no idea of what “life” actually is, do you? On page one you asked “What life was transferred?” Did you or I live before we were conceived? Of course not! Then what do you imagine life as being?Yadirf’s comments from page one:
The life (not life-form) of the person known as "Michael the archangel" was transferred. – Yadirf.
From page two:There is no distinction between our "life" and our "soul", they’re one and the same. – Yadirf.
It was the personal life of Michael himself, his being, his very existence, which God transferred into the womb of Mary. Note: Life = existence = soul, even as death = nonexistence. I really don't understand why people here find this so difficult to grasp. What's so hard to understand about the idea that God can, and did, take the life of Michael and implant it into the womb of a woman, which would become known as "Jesus"? Surely that's no more unbelievable than the reverse of that happening, is it? Did not Jesus, who had existed in human form for 33 years, return to being a spirit creature upon being resurrected? Was it not the very same person (life) that had come down from heaven that then returned to heaven? – Yadirf.
From page three:You can't see the difference between a person's life itself and the life force that is responsible for its existence? - Yadirf.
From page four:An individual's "life" (or "essence" if you prefer) is that person's existence. All creatures exist as a result of God having infused life into them, whether it be directly, such as was the case with the angels and the first man and woman, or indirectly through the medium of we who have parents. (Compare Genesis 2:7 with Psalms 146:4) Michael's existence was miraculously changed from that of an angel to that of a human embryo. In reverse order, after the man Jesus had died he returned to heaven as the spirit creature he formerly was. The same thing will take place when those who will reign with Christ in heaven are "changed" from human form to that of spirit creatures so as to have bodies compatible with the requirements of the spirit realm. (1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:17) Their life, or existence, will simply be transferred into another realm -- the spirit realm. – Yadirf.
I’ll let you fish the “definitions” you ask for out of the comments I’ve already made and quoted here. If you will look ever so closely you will find what I’ve already said amidst your list of definitions.Yadirf
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
Faithful2Jah
When Jesus died was Michael/Jesus totally nonexistent for three days?
Yes. He was absolutely, totally nonexistent during that period of time.Life = existence
Death = nonexistenceIf so, when he was resurrected was his resurrection then actually a total recreation? If so, how can it be said that the recreated Michael/Jesus was the same Michael/Jesus that had died and not just a copy of the old Michael/Jesus?
Who else would it be? It was the same person who died as was brought back to life. Why, may I ask, are you inclined towards thinking that there must be "continuity" in order for the person who is restored to life to be the "same" person who died. Is it really so far fetched to think that even as God can create a person in the first place that he also possesses the ability to recreate the same person a second time?In other words, if Michael/Jesus totally ceased to exist at the time of his death, and there was no continuity of existence between the old Michael/Jesus and the newly recreated Michael/Jesus, how can you say that the newly recreated Michael/Jesus was the same Michael/Jesus as the Michael/Jesus whose existence completely ended at the time of his death?
Yadirf
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
SS
You are saying that the 'life force', that impersonal electric like force, is the same as their 'essence' and existence. Life force = essence = existence. So then, based on that, i conclude what i posted before.
No, I didn’t say that. Go back to page three and note what you quoted me as having said. You will find that it’s at variance with what you are now saying I said. On page three you quoted me correctly as having said: “It was the personal life of Michael himself, his being, his very existence, which God transferred into the womb of Mary. Note: Life = existence = soul"Notice that I said Life = existence, NOT Life force = existence. That which empowers us to live is not the same as our “life”.
Perhaps you've been watching too many Star Trek movies. [8>]
Yadirf
Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.
-
130
Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man
by plmkrzy ini understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?
why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?
he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.
-
-
Yadirf
SS
Can you explain the difference between the life force of jesus, the heavenly arch angel, as defined above, and his essence? It's not clear to me to what you are referring to by this. Can you list, in plain descriptions what, in addition to his 'life force', was transferred?
I think that you're attempting to make more out of it than what it all really amounts to. It's rather simple, in my estimation. There's nothing really mysterious about it, other than we can't duplicate what God has done, since God is the sole source of life. An individual's "life" (or "essence" if you prefer) is that person's existence. All creatures exist as a result of God having infused life into them, whether it be directly, such as was the case with the angels and the first man and woman, or indirectly through the medium of we who have parents. (Compare Genesis 2:7 with Psalms 146:4) Michael's existence was miraculously changed from that of an angel to that of a human embryo. In reverse order, after the man Jesus had died he returned to heaven as the spirit creature he formerly was. The same thing will take place when those who will reign with Christ in heaven are "changed" from human form to that of spirit creatures so as to have bodies compatible with the requirements of the spirit realm. (1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:17) Their life, or existence, will simply be transferred into another realm -- the spirit realm. After their tenure as kings with Christ is up/expired then they will resume their lives as humans here at the earth. Contrary to what most think the text means there at Thessalonians, because humans were created to live in a material realm (even as the angels were created to live in a spiritual realm, and are still being punished for having changed realms in Noah's day) the 144,000 will NOT "always" be with the Lord, and the fact that Revelation 21:2 explains their return to earth at the end of the 1000 years shows that.Yadirf
Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.
-
23
Just in case the WTS is watching this site
by WildHorses inhi, my name is shari ann pieske aguillon, i was a member of your cult.
i want my name off of your members list, or whatever it is you keep.
the last address you had on me was 7553 stoney hill rd wake forest nc, 27526. .
-
-
Yadirf
Joel
In view of what Yadirf said to Lilacs here: "Your pretended onetime lover, Yadirf".
You picked up on it and said: "Hi Lilacs, Just remember any affection I have professed for you was true, never pretended."
Why do you prefer to make it appear as if I implied a TOTAL dislike for Lilacs? I didn't say that she had no likable or good qualities at all. I merely called attention to my having joked around with her, pretending for a while that she was an excellent replacement for Venice. But yes, she can be quite foolish sometimes, even as you've shown yourself capable of being. I stand by all else that I said too. I hope that you are doing better, haven't heard or read anything from you in a while.
Yadirf