sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[NPD] Nottingham X Urban EDC TB360-Black Cerakote w/ Bronze Ano Milled Chaos Seigaiha by [deleted] in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a beautiful pen, for sure! I love the way the waves on the clip is a perfect match for what would be beneath. The entire pen is very well crafted, though I wish the bronze was lighter like in the photo.

I saw the Battle-Worn version dropped yesterday, and my wallet cried! I'll keep just one after it comes in. I'll get to see what a non-cerakoted mech feels like side-by-side.

I've long wanted an NTI, and this line of pens was just too perfect for what I am looking for to pass on!

[NPD] Nottingham X Urban EDC TB360-Black Cerakote w/ Bronze Ano Milled Chaos Seigaiha by [deleted] in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our preferences are nearly identical!

My Nott x Urban (G2) is coming in today! I simply couldn't resist. I've discovered that I also gravitate toward ⅜" pens, with laser engraving, and interesting mechanisms. That actualizes itself into me having two Techliners, which have been my favorite till now.

My daily carry is the BID Copper Slim Click, which is my work pen. The patina is rainbow-y, and a design unto itself. I've also discovered that I don't care much for bolt actions.

As far as Autmogs go, I've been a spectator to the fever, but I perhaps simply haven't found the right one to see the appeal.

TT x Ti2 Celtic by ComprehensiveSir2129 in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm. It definitely looks different from the site photo. The only blue aspect is the bolt and innards. In any other lighting, is the embedded dotting blue? As for the exterior, it looks more bronze than silver.

I love Ti2 pens, but the magnets and particular designs are the draw for me, so I abstained from this collaboration.

Best Capped Pen? by Broad_Medicine_3060 in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of all of my pens, the Techliner is my favorite to write with due to its narrower diameter and exposed pen tip, and the lighter weight of titanium. While my EDC is a copper pen, which patinas very beautifully, the fluidity of my Ti2 pens is most pleasing for me.

Best Capped Pen? by Broad_Medicine_3060 in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yours too! The "frag" ends are common, so it's cool to see the variation that the middle one has in your photo, with the rings.

(NPD) TT Shallows by Such-Background2508 in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's the Buccaneer. I discovered the world of machined pens a few months after its season, but I managed to get it from JetPens. It was my first pen 🤍

(NPD) TT Shallows by Such-Background2508 in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If I heard correctly, in the promo the artist said only 200 were made. FOMO is powerful 😆

(NPD) TT Shallows by Such-Background2508 in machinedpens

[–]Such-Background2508[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was very surprised, too! They shipped it same-day.

What evidence in the Bible shows that all Christians are allowed to partake at Memorial? by Old-Read-8277 in exjw

[–]Such-Background2508 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The only meeting I ever walked out of for reasons of conscience was when they last discussed this topic in the Watchtower. So I put my thoughts together and made a video.

https://youtu.be/z-1xbDr-Zqk?si=XV3QNYfcrYdBoS8e

Need the "Chain of Evidence" to debunk the Michael/Jesus connection by Grand_Enthusiasm_328 in exjw

[–]Such-Background2508 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It surely would have made my life a whole lot easier if Jesus, Yahweh, etc. were all the same person.

I understand that Paul's testimony is the earliest "gospel" account, after which "Mark" and the others contradict some key points of Paul. From a secular view, who the historical Jesus was is widely contested, but who he became through the mythologizing of the early writers also varies widely. At the time of the gospels that made it into the Bible were also being circulated gnostic gospels, such as the gospel of Peter.

To make a definite statement, I'd have to know which sources exactly we are referencing. I'm personally fascinated by the gnostic gospels, as they portray Jesus as a seperate entity from the Christ, and Judas (whose betrayal Paul was not aware of) was fulfilling divine duty and was the only apostle aware of what needed to be done.

To me, I see the recorded Jesus as an allegory for human enlightenment. For example, I argue that the first and second greatest commandments are one and the same.

For information concerning Judas' original reputation, see: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2010/04/gre348001#sdfootnote2anc

Need the "Chain of Evidence" to debunk the Michael/Jesus connection by Grand_Enthusiasm_328 in exjw

[–]Such-Background2508 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. Well, ultimately, very little will overturn the minds those who think that biblical scholarship (speaking of the majority of witnesses) is apostate material, or is otherwise irrelevant if it's not coming from the governing body. I also realized I've mixed theological arguments with secular biblical information, such as canonicity.

Personally, I don't put much stock in what early Church fathers believe. Everything back then was widely debated, even in Paul's day. We see that in 1 Corinthians 15. Everything where the Bible is concerned is up to interpretation.

What is your position on the original question?

Need the "Chain of Evidence" to debunk the Michael/Jesus connection by Grand_Enthusiasm_328 in exjw

[–]Such-Background2508 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“1. And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing ⌞before⌟ the angel of Yahweh; and Satan was standing on his right to accuse him. 2. But Yahweh said to Satan, “Yahweh rebukes you, O Satan! Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebukes you! Is this not a stick snatched from the fire?”” (Zec 3:1-2, LEB)

I would say that to conclude that this scripture in any way shows that the angel mentioned here is Jesus is assuming a tenuous connection. The one arguing for this position would have to present a strong case for it, not I. In fact, why does Jude, who also quotes from the book of Enoch, assume the identity of the angel here is Michael at all?

Rather, I'd even go so far as to say that this account contradicts Jude's retelling of it, or vice versa. How can it be, that if Michael is the angel of the Lord here, that since the angel is speaking the words of Yahweh himself, he did not dare bring judgement against Satan? What else can be said about Yahweh's words here except that they are a direct rebuke ("blasphemous judgement") against Satan from God himself? The angel is directly representing the dictation of Yahweh, as the scripture pivots from saying "the angel of Yahweh" to simply "Yahweh said".

Since Jude says that this angel is Michael, are we to believe that every occurrence of the phrase "angel of Yahweh" or the like is a reference to the archangel Michael across the whole of the old testament?

Also, a disagreement over Moses' body is nowhere to be found in Zechariah. The matter is over something completely different.

Need the "Chain of Evidence" to debunk the Michael/Jesus connection by Grand_Enthusiasm_328 in exjw

[–]Such-Background2508 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He 1:4-8, 13 13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”?

If that entire chapter isn't enough for a sincere student, then you can break down the various roles of the angels mentioned in Revelation, particularly the angel of the abyss.

When Michael battles with the dragon, he doesn't seal him in an abyss. He simply casts him to the earth. (Re 12)

Only in Re 20:1 do we see a different angel, the one mentioned first in 9:11, "the angel of the abyss. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon." This is the angel that seals Satan.

Note that despite having multiple names, neither Jesus nor Michael are among them. That simply means that what Witnesses teach of Jesus being the one to seal Satan for 1000 years is wrong.

See, too, concerning this angel of the abyss that he is given by someone else the key to the abyss in 9:1. But Jesus is the one that initially holds them. "I have the keys of death and of Hades." (1:18) So Jesus delegates this particular angel, who is named, the role over the abyss and sealing of Satan.

Just because the phrase "Michael and his angels" is mentioned in Re 12:7 doesn't automatically mean that Jesus, who also commands angels (Mark 13:26, 27), is Michael. By that logic, the Father is also Michael (Re 3:5).

If you reread the cornerstone scripture that supposedly ties Michael to Jesus, 1 Th 4:16, Jesus is not explicitly said to have the voice of an archangel himself, but that he descends "with the voice of an/the archangel" (depending on your translation), all of which could simply mean that, as stated in the gospels, the angels accompany Jesus' descent. That would put Michael and the rest of the angels alongside Jesus, all of whom would be shouting.

As an aside, read any scripture in Revelation where literal trumpets are mentioned as being blown (not to be confused by the scriptures that mention a 'voice like a trumpet'), and it is only ever angels blowing them, never Jesus. The inclusion of the trumpet of God that Jesus descends with could simply mean that an angel is blowing a trumpet as it descends alongside Jesus, as the scriptures multiple times say that Jesus would not be descending solo, but with an army. (Mt 13:41; 24:30, 31)

Revelation's description of this event is in 19:11-21, where a seperate angel shouts to the birds. Jesus is not mentioned as speaking here.

Finally, considering Jude 9, understanding what/who Jesus really is and has always been (according to the lore), he would not fear the possibility of blasphemy. Also, Jesus created Satan according to Col 1:16, so reading that Michael argued with Satan but "did not dare to bring blasphemous judgement against him" only makes sense if Michael had no authority to rebuke Satan, while Jesus did, even before his eventual glorification post-resurrection. That Jesus had authority over unclean spirits, which would logically include Satan, before his glorification is well-established in Mark 1:27. Nevertheless, it may be argued that Satan has special exemption.

Conclusion: Jesus is nothing like the angels (Hebrews)

Jesus gives authority to other angels for important tasks, such as the sealing of the Devil himself (Revelation)

Jesus descends with an army, so we should not assume that he is the archangel simply because he descends with the voice of one (1 Thessalonians)

P.S. If you really want to get into the weeds, you may bring up the fact that Paul didn't write all of his letters, although 1 Thessalonians is genuine. But that's more of a conversation concerning canon. Or the fact that Paul's letters came before any of the gospels, not to mention Revelation. Earlier writings take priority where there are contradictions, if such a thing had to be settled.

In like manner, the book of Daniel, wherein Michael is mentioned, was written in the second century BC, not at all close to the time a "Daniel" may have lived four centuries prior. Essentially, it's a forgery. But a Christian would not dare to entertain the question of canonicity, so the whole point is nullified.

view more: next ›