Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 14, 1999 at 21:48:25 {fiuUEQ5dxUMRXA6xmpscslyACFuF8c}:
In Reply to: ************TRUE GOD OR FALSE GOD posted by honhea on November 13, 1999 at 05:59:19:
It is clear to you that that is the case. It is clear to me that he is referring to Jesus.
So we just have our own interpretation.
The only criteria I have to meet is that Jesus is:
1) A god.
2) That he will be in the flesh during the millennium.
3) That he is Job's "reedemer".
So this "interpretation" does not contradict the Bible.
But you're entitled to your own interpretation and I respect that.
You have yours.
I have mine.
We're both happy.
I read 1 Thessalonians where it clearly says Jesus personal voice is that of an archangel and figure out he must be an archangel if he has an archangel's voice. You read that and invent some voice in the background and claim Jesus is god. Fine. We just have two different views and two different interpretations.
The only thing you need to know from me is that the idea that Jesus is Michael, the archangel comes from that verse which connects the two instead of my own imagination.
Or it's like the idea that Jesus is the Prodigal Son. All I have to do is show where he receives the robe and ring and a banquet is thrown for him to connect him to the wedding feast and kingship and that's the basis for that belief. That's the interpretation. I don't need to go further than that. Only if some other scripture contradicts that Jesus will not come in the flesh or is not an imperfect man at the Second Coming will this interpretation not work.
But there is no way you can do that now since the wave offerings prove Jesus must come in imperfection at the second coming. You may not accept that or believe that, but it is based upon a specific interpretation of scripture. It's not just made up with no basis, even though you don't agree with it.
See. That's how it works.
You ahve your beliefs.
I have mine.
We're both happy to promote our own beliefs. That's the fun of discussion!
Cheers,
Bibleman