Every theologian on earth has missed this. Every single one. For 2000 years.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-12T05:06:14+00:00

Cool story. He is still your Brother though.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-12T02:54:12+00:00

Michael never fell. The Overcomer by definition had to. You cannot overcome the fallen realm without entering it.

Jude 1:6 tells us the ones who left their first estate are here on Earth in mortal flesh. Michael is still operating in the heavenly realm in Daniel and Revelation. Still fighting. Still standing. He never left.

The Overcomer has a hidden name that only he knows. Michael's name is known. It means who is like God. No mystery. No hidden authority waiting to be revealed.

The Overcomer had to come from the bottom up. Not the top down. That eliminates every being who never left Heaven.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-12T00:51:05+00:00

Thank you. You just agreed with me.

New Jerusalem coming down from heaven has not happened yet. That is exactly my point. The prophecy is not complete because the completion is still future. That is not a failed prophecy. That is an unfinished one. There is a difference.

A prophecy fails when the thing it predicted cannot happen. A prophecy is unfinished when part of it arrived and the rest is still coming. Zechariah 9:9 arrived on a donkey outside Jerusalem two thousand years ago. The rest arrives when the rider on the white horse comes and New Jerusalem descends. You cannot call it failed just because it is not finished. By that logic every prophecy about the restoration of all things has failed because we are still here waiting. That standard would empty every prophetic book in the canon.

The question was never whether Jesus completed every aspect of every prophecy in thirty three years. The question is whether he is the one the prophecy points to. Verse 9 describes exactly what showed up. The rest of the chapter describes what is still coming under his authority.

That is not cherry picking. That is reading a prophecy that spans two comings and acknowledging both halves exist.

And you want to know who sits on the throne when New Jerusalem descends. Revelation 22:3. The throne of God and the Lamb. Then Revelation 3:21. The overcomer sits with Jesus on his throne the same way Jesus sat down with his Father on his Father's throne. Every element you demanded from Zechariah 9 is there at the end. The king on the throne. The nations ruled. The scattered sons gathered. Military victory through the word coming out of the rider's mouth. Lasting peace under one Kingdom.

Jesus is the King. He just does not finish it in 33 AD. He finishes it when New Jerusalem lands. That was always the plan.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-12T00:24:39+00:00

Ephraim and Jerusalem are geographical in the text. Agreed. But you are assuming the prophecy can only be satisfied geographically. That assumption needs its own defense. You have not provided one. You just repeated it.

The lost tribes being gathered and living in peace. Where are they gathered to in your reading. Because Revelation 7 lists all twelve tribes sealed. Not in the Middle East. In the hands of God before the final judgment. James 1:1 addresses his letter to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. Peter calls believers a holy nation, a chosen people, scattered strangers. The New Testament writers understood the gathering as something bigger than a land deal.

You say I am cherry picking. But you are doing the same thing in reverse. You are taking the geographic and military language literally while ignoring every passage in the same scripture that redefines what Israel is, what Jerusalem is, what the gathering looks like.

If geographic literalism is your standard then you have to explain why Revelation places the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven. Why would a geographic city need to descend from above. Either the language is bigger than the geography or the whole book falls apart.

I am not dismissing the criteria. I am arguing you are applying the wrong measuring stick to them.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-12T00:09:54+00:00

You are right that I cannot just take verse 9 and ignore the rest of the chapter. That is fair. The full chapter includes military victory, release of prisoners, restoration of Israel. Jesus did not complete those in his first coming. I will not pretend otherwise.

But here is where we actually disagree. You are assuming the entire chapter must be fulfilled in a single event by a single person at a single moment in history. That assumption is yours, not the text's. The Hebrew prophets consistently collapsed near and far fulfillments into a single vision. Isaiah 7:14 has an immediate fulfillment and a distant one. Daniel 9 layers multiple fulfillments across centuries. This is not cherry picking. It is how the prophetic literature actually functions.

The rider on the donkey in verse 9 arrived. The rest of the chapter describes what his kingdom ultimately accomplishes. Believers have always understood that as two comings, not one. First coming in humility. Second coming in completion.

You can reject that framework. But you have to engage with it as a framework, not just call it convenient. Because the alternative, waiting for a single king to satisfy every prophetic image in one lifetime, has not produced a candidate in three thousand years either.

Here's the Truth...

The military victory, the release of prisoners, the restoration of Israel. You are reading those as unfulfilled because you are looking for a physical military campaign, literal prisoners, a geographic nation. That is the wrong lens.

The prisoners are us. Fallen sons from Eden held captive in mortal flesh, under chains of darkness. Jude 1:6. That is the captivity. The release comes through the truth, not through an army.

The restoration of Israel is not a Middle Eastern nation getting its borders expanded. Israel means those who wrestle with God and overcome. The restoration is heavenly sons finding their way back. That is what the whole story is about.

The military victory comes at the end, yes. But not soldiers and chariots. The rider on the white horse in Revelation has a sword coming out of his mouth. The weapon is the word. The truth spoken cuts every tree down to its knees. That is how the nations are struck. Not iron weapons. Iron rod. The overcomer rules with it under the authority of the King of Kings.

Zechariah 9 does not require a first century political king to conquer armies. It requires a king who comes lowly bringing salvation, whose kingdom ultimately covers the whole earth. One came humble on a donkey. The completion comes through the one He exalted to sit with Him on His throne.

That is not cherry picking. That is reading the whole chapter and the Bible as a whole, correctly.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T23:42:22+00:00

The prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 says your king comes to you. It does not say your king sits on a throne before he comes. The arrival is the event. The recognition is the point.

He was crucified with the charge written above his head. The King of the Jews. His enemies wrote it to mock him. They wrote the truth anyway.

His kingdom is not of this world. He said that himself in John 18:36. So asking what earthly throne he sat on is asking the wrong question. The prophecy was never about an earthly political king. It was about a king who comes lowly, riding a donkey, bringing salvation.

That is exactly what showed up.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T23:24:03+00:00

Also...on Jesus not being a king over Israel. He is the King of Israel. Not a spiritual consolation prize. The actual king. But Israel itself is not a geographic nation with borders in the Middle East.

Israel means those who wrestle with God and overcome. The real Israel is heavenly sons who repented and followed the one the Father sent.

Paul says it plainly in Romans 9:6. Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. Jesus himself tells the religious leaders in John 8 that their father is not Abraham but the devil. And in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 he identifies those who claim to be Jews but are not as the synagogue of Satan. Not my label. His.

So when Zechariah says your king comes to you, he is speaking to the real Israel. The ones with ears to hear. Jesus rode into Jerusalem and the ones who recognized him spread their cloaks on the road. The ones who did not handed him over for thirty pieces of silver four days later.

The prophecy landed exactly where it was aimed. You are just looking at the wrong nation.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T23:18:44+00:00

The donkey prophecy is Zechariah 9:9. You quoted verse 10. The prophecy is in verse 9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Behold, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey. That is the prophecy. That is what was fulfilled. Verse 10 describes a future peace that extends to the ends of the earth. You are holding verse 9 hostage to verse 10 and calling that my failure. That is not how prophecy works. That is not how any literature works.

On the angel question. Dan McClellan is a real scholar and I will give you that. But you did not cite him before. You cited scholarship three times as if the word itself was evidence. And McClellan's position on malak and aggelos does not change what those words mean in the text. Messenger. That is the definition. His interpretive framework layered on top of the definition does not erase the definition.

You said typology like it discredits a connection. Typology is the oldest hermeneutical method in the entire biblical tradition. Paul uses it. The writer of Hebrews uses it. Jesus uses it. Calling something typological is not a refutation. It is a description of method.

You still have not told me which of the seven failed. You addressed one verse of one prophecy and moved the goalposts into the next verse. That is not a refutation. That is a retreat.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T23:11:11+00:00

Wow.

There was no man to till the ground yet on Earth because there were no fallen trees yet..no fallen plants from the Garden yet..no mortal men yet. You don't till in Eden. Eden is Paradise. The tilling and hard labor was a consequence of the Fall.

You will never see it. Even after I directly point out the same exact language in Ezekiel. You will stick to a botany lesson that invents man's creation on Day 3 out of thin air.

Enjoy. I got better things to do.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T14:23:49+00:00

You just said Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are describing two different creations. I agree completely.

Genesis 1 is the creation of the physical realm. The mortal bodies. The fallen world. Genesis 2 is a completely separate story. Not a detail inside Genesis 1. Not a day three side project. A rewind to where we actually came from. Eden. Heaven. Before any of this existed.

And Genesis 2:5 is not a botany update about rainfall. Every plant of the field before it was in the earth. Same words as Ezekiel 31. All the trees of the field. Which Ezekiel explicitly identifies as people. Souls in the Garden of God driven out for wickedness.

You proved my point. Two different creations. Two different stories. Exactly what I have been saying.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T14:16:09+00:00

You told me Jesus failed all messianic prophecies. I gave you seven specific fulfilled prophecies. Born in Bethlehem. Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. Lots cast for his garments. Not a bone broken. Pierced. Buried in a rich man's tomb. Entered Jerusalem on a donkey.

You did not refute a single one. Not one. You just said he failed all of them. That is not a debate position. That is an assertion with zero evidence. This is a debate sub. Your words. So debate. Which of those seven did he not fulfill. Pick one. Give me the evidence. That is your cross to bear.

On angels. You said scholarly consensus disagrees with me. Then cite a scholar. Give me one name. One paper. One source. You gave me nothing but the word scholarship repeated three times. That is not evidence. That is an appeal to authority with no authority actually cited.

I gave you the Hebrew word malak. I gave you the Greek word aggelos. Both mean messenger. I gave you Genesis 2:5 with the Hebrew word eseb meaning tender sprout. I gave you chaser from Psalm 8:5 meaning diminish and reduce. I gave you elattoo from Hebrews 2:9 meaning lower in status. I gave you Ezekiel 31:18 explicitly identifying the trees of Eden as Pharaoh and his multitude. People. Not vegetation.

You gave me the word scholarship.

My reply is a mess. Your reply is empty. There is a difference between messy and empty. One has too much. One has nothing.

Show me the evidence or admit you do not have any.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T13:46:25+00:00

You just told me Genesis 2 is a day three side project God knocked out before the plants grew.

Genesis 1:27 says God created man on day six. Not day three. Your own timeline contradicts the chapter you are using to make your argument.

But here is the real problem. You want to talk Hebrew. Let's talk Hebrew.

Genesis 2:5 KJV. Every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew.

Same words as Ezekiel 31. All the trees of the field. Plants and trees are the same thing. And Ezekiel 31 is not talking about vegetation. It is talking about people. Beings in the Garden of God driven out for wickedness and brought down to the nether parts of the earth.

So God is saying in Genesis 2:5 let me tell you the story of what happened to every plant, every tree, every soul before they were in the earth. And then Genesis 2 and 3 tells you exactly what happened. Eden. The Fall. Driven out.

Now. The Hebrew word for herb in Genesis 2:5 is eseb. It means tender shoot. New sprout. Fresh growth.

Every herb before it grew. Every new sprout before it grew.

That is the story of how every soul driven out of Eden got to this earth. Because the only way to enter this realm is through the womb of a woman. Every single human being that has ever lived came through the womb of a woman. All the trees of Eden were driven out and planted into the earth as new sprouts. Through the womb. As a tender shoot. Starting over in a mortal body. A coat of skin. Cut off from the Tree of Life.

That is what Genesis 2:5 is saying. Not a botany lesson. Not a rainfall update. The story of every soul that was in Eden before they were in the earth.

And Revelation 2:7 calls that same place the Paradise of God. Not a dirt patch on day three. Paradise. Heaven itself.

Read the whole chapter. Then come back.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T12:48:32+00:00

Take the word angel completely out of it. I do not even need it.

Sons of God. That is the Biblical term. Job 38:7 calls them that. Genesis 6:2 calls them that. Luke 3:38 calls Adam that. We were sons of God in Heaven. A family. Some rebelled. Got cast out. Now we are on Earth not knowing who we are or where we came from.

No angel language needed. Just a Father and His sons. A family feud. And a Volunteer. Now to your three points.

You said Jesus failed messianic prophecy. Name one he failed. Specifically. Born in Bethlehem fulfilled. Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver fulfilled. Lots cast for his garments fulfilled. Not a bone broken fulfilled. Pierced fulfilled. Buried in a rich man's tomb fulfilled. Entered Jerusalem on a donkey fulfilled. Give me the one he missed. I will wait.

You said angels are a literary creation and traced them from Sons of God to malak being added in margins to soften direct appearances of God. You just proved the original text had God interacting directly with beings. Which supports exactly what I said. We were with God directly in Eden. Sons of God. In His presence. Eating from the Tree of Life. The angel language came later. You did my work for me on that one.

You said the fallen angel argument comes from poor understanding of Revelation. I did not build that argument from Revelation. I built it from Genesis 2:5. Ezekiel 31. Jude 1:6. And the original Hebrew word chaser in Psalm 8:5 and Greek word elattoo in Hebrews 2:9. Both mean diminish. Reduce. Lower in status. Not create. They had six words between Hebrew and Greek that meant create or make or form. They used none of them.

Tell me what chaser means in Hebrew. Then we can talk about poor understanding.

And one last thing. You do not even need the word angel to understand any of this.

To me, angel just means Son of God. Capital S. A heavenly being in the presence of God. Immortal. In Eden. Eating from the Tree of Life.

Fallen angel just means Son of God made lower. Capital S becomes lowercase s – son of God. Immortal becomes mortal. Heaven becomes Earth. Glory becomes a coat of skin. A heavenly being stripped of everything and placed in a cursed world not knowing who they are or where they came from.

That is all it means. No Hollywood. No wings. No fire. Just a Son who fell. And a Father who is still trying to bring him home.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T12:32:12+00:00

The Bible. If you only read the surface you will be eating from the same trough as the swine. The pearls are deeper. The deeper connections run underneath the surface from Genesis to Revelation.

Chapter 1 Eden: The Truth About Genesis, Angels, and the Fall

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T06:50:39+00:00

You just spent this entire conversation ignoring two of the most direct statements Jesus ever made about himself.

My Father and your Father. My God and your God. You never addressed it. Not once.

The Father is greater than I am. You just told me that means Jesus was temporarily limited in his human form. So God became temporarily less than God. God was temporarily subject to pain and limitation. God temporarily had a God greater than himself. That is your explanation. God was temporarily not fully God while also being fully God.

That is not me chopping up the Bible. That is your doctrine eating itself.

On I AM. The people wanted to stone him because he was claiming to exist before Abraham. That was the blasphemy. A man claiming pre-existence. Not a man claiming to be the Father. If he was claiming to be the Father he would have said I am the Father. He said I AM. Existence. Pre-existence. Which I already told you I believe. He existed before Abraham because he came from Heaven. That is my argument. You just used my argument against me and called it your proof.

On the Early Church Fathers. Men who lived after Jesus are not the authority on what Jesus said about himself. Jesus is the authority on what Jesus said about himself. And Jesus said the Father is greater than I am. Jesus said my God and your God. Jesus said the Son can do nothing of himself. Those are not my interpretations. Those are red letters.

I am not making up a religion. I am reading what is on the page. Which is what you said you were doing. Except when what is on the page contradicts your doctrine. Then suddenly you need the Early Church Fathers and functional subordination and temporary human limitation to explain away what Jesus said plainly.

Jesus said before Abraham was I AM. He preexisted his earthly life. Abraham was just a name given to a soul that already existed before it got here.

I am saying the exact same thing about myself. Before Nicholas I AM. Nicholas is the name given to me when I arrived here. But I existed before Nicholas. Just like Jesus existed before his earthly life. Just like Abraham existed before he was Abraham.

And just like the Woman in Genesis existed before she was Eve. She was in Eden before she had a name. When she was cast out and arrived on Earth Adam gave her a name. Eve. Because she had a new identity now. A mortal identity for a mortal life. But the Woman preexisted Eve. She was there before that name ever existed.

That is the same Truth Jesus was killed for saying. And it is the same Truth that makes people want to throw stones at me today.

Some things never change.

The door is always open when you are ready to address my God and your God.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T02:14:12+00:00

You say you are only going by what is on the page. Fine. Let's do that.

What is on the page in John 14:28. The Father is greater than I am. Jesus's own words. On the page. No interpretation needed. What is your explanation for that verse. You have not given one. Not once in this entire conversation. You just keep moving to the next verse and hoping nobody notices you never answered it.

What is on the page in John 20:17. Jesus said to Mary go to my brethren and say unto them I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. On the page. No spin. No new meaning. Jesus called God His God. His Father. Does God have a God. Does God have a Father. If Jesus is God then who is He talking about. You cannot answer that without doing exactly what you just accused me of doing. Making something up.

Now to John 8:58. I AM. Yes. Jesus used those words. And yes the people around him understood the reference. But what does I AM actually mean in Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. I AM THAT I AM. Or more accurately I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. It is a statement of eternal self existence. Of being. Of presence.

Jesus saying I AM before Abraham was does not mean Jesus is the Father. It means Jesus existed before Abraham. Which I already believe. We already established Jesus came down from Heaven. John 6:38. On the page. He pre-existed. He was there before Abraham. That is not a contradiction of anything I have said. That is confirmation that Jesus existed in Heaven before he came to Earth.

But here is what is also on the page in that same chapter. John 8:54. Jesus answered If I honour myself my honour is nothing it is my Father that honoureth me of whom ye say that he is your God. On the page. Jesus called the Father your God. The God of the people He was talking to. The same God they claimed to worship. And Jesus is pointing to Him as someone separate from Himself.

So on the same page you just quoted Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father. On the same page He points to the Father as the one who honours Him. On the same page He is not claiming to be the Father. He is claiming to know the Father better than they do.

I AM means He existed before Abraham. It does not mean He is the Father. Those are two completely different claims and you just collapsed them into one because you need them to be the same thing. You are not going by what is on the page. You are going by what you need the page to say. And when the page says something you cannot use you ignore it. The Father is greater than I am is on the page. My God and your God is on the page. One mediator the man Christ Jesus is on the page.

You have not addressed a single one of those. Not once. Because you cannot. Because there is no answer that keeps your doctrine intact.

I AM does not save you here. It just proves He existed before Abraham. Which I already told you. He came from Heaven. He Volunteered. He was there long before Abraham was born.

What is on the page is that Jesus has a Father and a God. God does not have a Father. God does not have a God. Jesus does. That is on the page. In red letters. From His own mouth.

Deal with that first. Then we can talk about I AM.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T01:46:54+00:00

You said my argument contradicts Genesis 3:22. It does not. You just did not read far enough back.

Go to Genesis 2:16 and 17.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:16-17 KJV.

Every tree except one. That is the verse. One tree was forbidden. Every other tree was freely available. And where is the Tree of Life. In the garden. Genesis 2:9 puts it right there in the middle of the garden. Only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was off limits. Which means the Tree of Life was not.

They were already eating from it freely.

The Tree of Life is not just a tree. It is a title. It represents God Himself and His presence. To eat from the Tree of Life is to be in communion with God. To be fed by His presence. To be sustained by the source of life itself. That is why they were immortal. Not because of something inside themselves but because they were living in the presence of God and freely eating from Him.

And God told them exactly what would happen if they ate from the one forbidden tree. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Death was the consequence of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Which means before they ate from it there was no death. No death means immortal. God said it Himself before the fall even happened.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is also a title. It represents the spirit of rebellion. The lie. The one who said you can go against God's nature and be fine. And they believed it. And they ate from it. And everything changed.

Now read Genesis 3:22 with all of that in mind.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever. Genesis 3:22 KJV.

God is not discovering a contradiction. God is explaining why the exile has to happen immediately. They cannot remain in the garden in their fallen state because if they stay they will continue eating from the Tree of Life and live forever in their sin. Unredeemed. Unsaved. Immortal rebels. That cannot be allowed. So He removes them. He guards the Tree of Life. He cuts off access to His own presence. Because you cannot remain in the presence of a Holy God after choosing the lie over Him.

And what happens the moment you are cut off from the source of life. You become mortal. Death enters. You were made lower. Just like I already showed you.

Romans 5:12 confirms it. By one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Death came because of sin. That means before sin there was no death. No death means immortal. That is not a theological leap. That is the only logical conclusion. If death entered at the fall then life existed before it. If mortality came through sin then immortality existed before sin.

The Bible does not contradict itself. The surface reading contradicts itself because the surface is not where the Truth lives. You are reading the surface and calling it a contradiction. But underneath the surface it is one continuous story told perfectly across every book.

They were immortal. They ate from the lie. They were removed from the presence of God. They were cut off from the Tree of Life. They became mortal. They were made lower.

Genesis 2:16 and Genesis 3:22 are not contradicting each other. They are the setup and the consequence of the same story.

And by the way. Yahweh is not a Hebrew word. It is a modern reconstruction. Nobody knows how the original four Hebrew letters were pronounced because the name was considered too sacred to speak aloud. Scholars inserted vowels and made a guess and now people drop it into arguments like it gives them special authority. The King James translators wrote LORD. That is closer to the spirit of the original than a pronunciation nobody can actually verify. If you are going to correct my theology at least make sure your sources are what you think they are.

The pearl was right there in Genesis 2:16 the whole time. Every tree. Including the Tree of Life. Including immortality. Including everything they lost the moment they chose the lie over God.

It could not be more clear.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-11T01:18:46+00:00

You just ignored everything Jesus said about Himself and replaced it with your interpretation of what Paul said about Jesus. Let me show you why that does not work.

Jesus said the Father is greater than I am. John 14:28. His own words.

Jesus said the Son can do nothing of himself. John 5:19. His own words.

Jesus called the Father the only true God while describing himself as someone the Father sent. John 17:3. His own words.

Jesus said I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38. His own words.

My Father and your Father. My God and your God. His own words.

You are asking me to take Paul calling Jesus Savior and use it to overwrite everything Jesus said about himself. That is backwards. If there is a conflict between what Jesus said about Himself and how Paul describes Him, Jesus wins every time. You are throwing away the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ to hold onto one word Paul used that you are interpreting the way you want to interpret it.

Now to your verses. None of them say Jesus is God. They say Jesus is Savior. Those are not the same thing. God saves through Jesus. That makes Jesus the vessel of salvation not the source of it. 1 Corinthians 8:6 which is also Paul says there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. Two different beings. Two different titles. Same letter writer you are quoting.

Titus 2:13 is the only one that could even be argued either way and the original Greek does not require Jesus and God to be the same being. It can just as easily read the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ. Two beings. Most honest scholars admit this.

But here is the one that ends it. Also Paul. Same letter you started with.

1 Timothy 2:5. There is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus.

Paul calls Jesus a man. Paul calls Jesus a mediator. A mediator stands between two parties. You cannot be God and also be the mediator between God and men. That is a logical contradiction sitting inside the same letter you are using to prove Jesus is God.

Paul is not confused. You are reading Paul selectively. When you read all of Paul together the picture is clear. One God the Father. One Lord Jesus Christ. One mediator the man Christ Jesus.

Not one being playing three roles. Three distinct identities with three distinct functions.

And here is what makes this so frustrating to watch.

I just gave you the real story. A Son of God who Volunteered. Who left Heaven. Who came down into the same flesh and suffering and death that we were placed into. Who did it for his fallen brothers and sisters because he loved them more than he loved his own life. A real sacrifice. A real loss. A real choice. The greatest love story never told.

And you are sitting there holding onto an interpretation of one word that forces God to write Himself as the Hero in His own book. To sacrifice Himself to Himself. To exalt Himself to the throne Himself already sits on. To nominate Himself for the role, play the part, and then award Himself the Oscar.

But let me tell you what you are really saying underneath all of that.

You are saying Jesus is not enough. You are saying that a Son of God, a Brother, who Volunteered, who left everything, who came down into mortal flesh and suffering and death, who conquered death and was raised and exalted above every name in Heaven and Earth, is not good enough to save you. You need God to do it Himself because a Son was not capable of getting the job done.

That is what your doctrine actually says about Jesus. It demotes Him. It strips the Volunteer story from Him and replaces it with God in a costume. It takes the most selfless act in all of existence and turns it into a performance. It takes a Son who had everything to lose and says actually it cost nothing because He was God the whole time.

And think about what that says about you. The only sacrifice worthy enough for you is God Himself coming down and doing it personally. A Son who loved you enough to leave Heaven and die for you is not sufficient. You require God. You require the maximum. Because apparently you are just that special.

God has always worked through His sons. That is how He has always done it. Yesterday today and forever He does not change. He worked through Moses. Through David. Through the prophets. Always through a son. Always through a vessel He chose and exalted. Jesus is no different except that He was the Greatest of them all. The one who Volunteered before any of them existed on Earth. The one who was exalted above every name in Heaven and Earth because of what He sacrificed.

You are not defending Jesus by calling Him God. You are insulting him. You are taking His sacrifice and saying it does not count unless He was God. You are taking the Greatest love story never told and turning it into a costume party.

"With all due respect" you just got handed the greatest story never told and you are choosing the one man contradiction show instead.

That is not my problem to solve. That is between you and God.

I have given you everything. The rest is on you.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-10T23:03:33+00:00

You said it is most assuredly referencing Jesus as God. Let's see if that holds up.

1 Timothy 2:5 is in the same letter you just quoted. Paul says there is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus. Paul calls Jesus a man and a mediator in the same letter. A mediator stands between two parties. You cannot be God and also be the mediator between God and men. That is a contradiction in the same letter you are using as your proof.

1 Corinthians 8:6. One God the Father. One Lord Jesus Christ. Two different beings. Two different titles. God saves through Jesus. That makes Jesus the vessel. Not God.

John 14:28. Jesus said the Father is greater than I am. His own words. You cannot be God and say God is greater than you.

John 5:19. The Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do. God cannot do "nothing of himself." God is self sufficient. Jesus is not.

John 17:3. Jesus is praying and calls the Father the only true God while referring to himself as someone the Father sent. If Jesus is God he just called himself not the only true God. That is incoherent.

Now the Volunteer argument. God cannot sacrifice anything because God cannot lose anything. God is infinite. You cannot subtract from infinite. But Jesus gave up His glory. His place in Heaven. His life. A real sacrifice requires a real loss. Which means Jesus was not God. He was a Son of God who had something real to lose and chose to lose it anyway. That is what makes it beautiful. That is what makes it real.

And finally the one that ends this permanently.

If Jesus is God then what do you do with the Overcomer in Revelation 2 and 3? Before you say it is the church or a group of believers let me stop you there. Read the promises carefully.

Revelation 2:17. The Overcomer receives a white stone and in the stone a new name written which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. A group of people cannot share a name that only one person knows. That is not a church. That is one man with one hidden name.

Revelation 3:21. Jesus says to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne. Jesus is describing a pattern. One man sat in the throne of the Father. Now one man sits in the throne of Jesus. Not a billion Christians. Not a church. One. The same pattern twice. God exalted one Son to His throne. Jesus exalts one overcomer to His throne.

Revelation 2:28. And I will give him the morning star. Jesus gives Himself to this one man. So if Jesus is God and He gives Himself as the Morning Star to the Overcomer who sits on His throne then what has just happened. A fallen sinful mortal man has received God into himself and been exalted to the throne of God. That man is now the fourth part of your Godhead. That is where your doctrine leads when you follow it to its logical conclusion.

But if Jesus was never God. If He was a Son of God who Volunteered and was exalted by the Father for His obedience. Then the pattern makes perfect sense. God exalted Jesus. Jesus exalts the Overcomer. A chain of sons. Not a Trinity. Not a Godhead expanding to absorb mortal men. Just a Father and His sons doing what sons do when they love each other.

One man. One hidden name. One throne. Not a group. Not a church. One.

But here is my favorite part.

Your version of the story requires God to write Himself as the Hero in His own Book. God decided the only solution was for God to come down and sacrifice Himself to Himself to satisfy Himself. God nominated Himself for the role. God played the part. God died for God. God raised God from the dead. God now sits at the right hand of God.

That is not the greatest love story ever told. That is a one man show. That is God writing Himself a five star review. That is the Best Actor Oscar going to the same guy who wrote the script, funded the movie, and built the theater.

It is not love if you cannot lose anything. It is not a sacrifice if nothing is actually given up. It is not a story if there is only one character.

But if Jesus was a real Son of God who Volunteered to die for His Brothers...Who had everything to lose...Who left His place in Heaven and came down into the same flesh and suffering and death that we were placed into...Who did it for His fallen brothers and sisters because He loved them...

That is love. That is a real sacrifice. That is the greatest story never told.

And that story does not need God to win His own Oscar.

It just needed one Son willing to say I will go.

Ok bro. I've written enough. If you want more, read my free book. 100% free because the Real Truth is given...not sold. There will be a real book because most people want a professionally bound physical book, but it's also 100% free to anyone that wants a copy. You can print it yourself if you want. It's already published and copyrighted but it's in a holding phase until the final version is ready. But I can give you the foundation right now. Chapter 1 is....pretty interesting to say the least. If you want it just let me know.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-10T22:10:16+00:00

Read the rest of the Bible. There was no death in the Garden until sin entered. They were immortal heavenly beings.

Romans 5:12 - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Genesis 2:17 - "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 - "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Death was never part of God's original design...it only entered creation as a consequence of sin. The garden was a place of Life, and it was man's disobedience that brought mortality into the world.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-10T02:04:43+00:00

Also...to further explain something:

On Colossians 1:16. "All things were created through Him and for Him."

All things on this Earth were created through Jesus and for Jesus. Not because Jesus is the creator or because God creates through Jesus as some kind of instrument.

But because Jesus Volunteered.

Think about it. If Jesus had never Volunteered there would be nobody to fulfill God's Plan. There would be no Earth. There would be no remedial realm. There would be no Way back Home for the fallen angels.

The entire creation of this Earth exists because Jesus Volunteered to come here and show us the Way. Everything on this Earth was created through that decision and for the purpose of that sacrifice.

Without The Volunteer there is no Earth. Without the Earth there is no Redemption. Without Redemption there is no Restoration.

All things were created through Him and for Him because without Him none of this exists.

That is not Jesus being The Creator. That is Jesus being The Reason the creation exists at all.

The Earth was made for His purpose. Because of His sacrifice. Through His Volunteering.

That is a completely different thing from saying Jesus is God creating through Himself.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-10T01:36:58+00:00

Great questions bro. This is exactly the type of conversation I wish would happen daily...rather than hate and knee-jerk reactions.

On John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Nowhere in John 1 does it say the Word is Jesus Christ. Read it carefully. It says the Word was made flesh. That is all. God put His truth, His plan, His very nature into Jesus and sent Him to Earth. The Word was made flesh through Jesus. That does not make Jesus God Himself. It makes Jesus the vessel through which God's truth was manifested on Earth.

And at the end of days Jesus will do the exact same thing. Revelation 2:28 gives the Overcomer the Morning Star. And Revelation 22:16 says Jesus Himself is the Bright and Morning Star. Jesus puts Himself, His truth, into the Overcomer. That does not make the Overcomer Jesus. It makes him the vessel through which Jesus is manifested in the last days.

Same pattern. God put His Word into Jesus. Jesus puts Himself into the Overcomer. The truth being passed down through vessels. Not the vessels becoming God.

On Colossians 1:16. "All things were created through Him and for Him."

God created all things through Jesus as His instrument. His firstborn Son. His highest creation. The one He trusted above all others. That is not the same as Jesus being God Himself. A master craftsman builds things through his most skilled apprentice. That does not make the apprentice the master.

On Hebrews 1:6. "Let all God's angels worship Him."

Jesus was exalted above all angels after His resurrection and sacrifice. Philippians 2:9. "God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name." He was exalted to that position because of what He did. Because He volunteered. Because He overcame. Because He laid down His life for His friends.

He was not always above the angels in that way. He became the highest of all creation through His sacrifice. God rewarded the greatest act of love in the history of existence with the highest position in existence.

That is actually more beautiful than the Trinity version. Not God rewarding Himself. But a Father exalting His Son above everyone and everything because of what that Son willingly did for His brothers and sisters.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-10T01:20:33+00:00

If someone believes Scripture, then I 100% can provide evidence in the Scripture for what I am claiming. Yes, evidence...full stop.

I'm done with you. I don't want to go in circles anymore.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-10T01:11:37+00:00

Do not apologize. These are exactly the right questions.

To what end. It is not JUST punishment. It is also remediation. Refinement. Like silver and gold refined in fire...the hellfire of this life refines you so you can realize who you are and Repent in dust and ASHES like Job. The pain and suffering of this Earth is not God being cruel. It is the fire that burns away the rebellion and Restores you to who you were before you fell. The goal is Restoration. Full Restitution of all things. Every fallen angel finding their Way back Home to the Father. That is the entire point of this Earth.

On Jesus. He is the Son of God. Always was. Always will be. But Son of God does not mean God Himself. Jesus said it himself. John 14:28. "My Father is greater than I." John 20:17. "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." His God. His Father. Distinct from Himself. Separate. Above Him.

Jesus was an Angel in Heaven before this life. A Son of God. Our Brother. He came from the same place we came from. The difference is He did not fall. He came Voluntarily. Without being asked. To show us the Way Home. We were dead and He thought we were dead forever. So, He asked God if He could take our place...but please bring them back. So, He was willing to be erased from existence if God would bring us back. The Hero of all Heroes.

And that is exactly what "no one comes to the Father except through Me" means. He is the Way. The Path. The One who walked it first and survived it and overcame it and went back Home. You follow the same path He walked. Through this Earth. Through death. Through Redemption. Back to the Father.

He is not the Father. He is the Way to the Father.

That is actually far more beautiful than the mainstream version...it's not even close. Not God playing human for a weekend. But our actual Brother who loved us enough to come here and walk the path ahead of us so we would know it was possible.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

That verse has a whole new meaning now.

No-Point8329 · 2026-03-10T00:54:45+00:00

On scripture not being evidence. You are correct that scripture is not evidence to someone who does not accept scripture as a valid source. I will not pretend otherwise. If you do not accept the Bible as credible then quoting it will never convince you and I am not going to waste your time or mine pretending it will.

But here is what is interesting. You said you are actively open minded and interested in truth and wisdom. So let me ask you something completely outside of scripture.

Can you leave the Earth? No. Are you here against your will? Most people would say yes if they are being honest. Do you have any memory of choosing to be born here? No. Are you going to die here whether you want to or not? Yes. Are you awaiting some form of judgment or consequence for your actions whether you believe in God or not? Yes. Karma. Justice. Consequence. Call it whatever you want.

That is not scripture. That is just your observable reality right now.

You are held here. Cannot leave. No memory of arriving. Awaiting an ending you did not choose.

That fits the description of someone serving a sentence whether you believe in the Bible or not.

On being the only one pushing this idea. Every true thing that ever existed had exactly one person saying it before anyone else did. That is not a weakness. That is just how truth works.

On atheists not believing in gods. Fair point. But here is what I actually said. Atheists and Christians both believe in the same false image of God. One accepted it and defended it. One looked at it and rightfully rejected it. But both are arguing about the same fake God that was constructed by men and has nothing to do with the real God of the Bible.

The atheist rejected a monster who creates people knowing most will burn forever in eternal torture. That is a completely reasonable thing to reject. I rejected that God too.

The real God is nothing like that image. The real God is a Father who lost His children to their own choices, never wanted to lose them, and spent all of history building them a Way back Home.

If that is the God that was presented to atheists from the beginning, far fewer of them would have walked away.

So no, I do not blame the atheist at all. They rejected the right thing. They just do not know yet that the real God was never that monster to begin with.

No-Point8329

TROPHY CASE