TrueTheology.net

by **Rotherham** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:47 pm

Hello TS,

We are talking about linguistic possibilities. There has been no bait and switch.

Is it linguistically possible to render pantas as "all other"? Yes, as many translations demonstrate by choosing to do so in similar contexts.

Just because Moffatt's failed to do so at Col. 1:16,17 does not mean that it shouldn't be done. Think about it. Moffatt's did not render "he is before all things" with "other" either, but the fact is that is one of the best ways to render that phrase into English, because Jesus can not logically be before himself so he can't be a part of the all things in that statement. "Other" resolves the problem just like it does in "all other creation" because Jesus is already revealed to be part of creation by being the "firstborn" OF creation. You're focusing on the wrong thing once again.

Moffat, who is Trinitarian, would not want to make Jesus a creation so naturally he would avoid using "other" in the phrase, but he suffers from the same problem as every other Trinitarian does at this verse. They have no way to separate Christ from creation because he is the "firstborn" OF creation.

Regards

by **truthseeker** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:55 pm

Is there one bible out there that does exactly that (in col 1:16-17) of what you mention or scholar that supports nwt insertion of not one, but two words into the text at the same time? Name him and the bible.

Or is this simply bait and switch as I have stated and there is no such support.
Notice moffats translation in the other two texts do not insert two words, just one.

As seen by all your examples earlier you could not find one biblical precident. All the verses you showed only had one insertion. The word things. None of them showed Other Things. There is not one scriptural support for such nonsense. Nor is there scholarly support and not a single other bible translation does this in the world. Why? Because it's dishonest.

It doesn't matter how you want to rationalize it. Can you name one scholar that supports inserting two fictional words at the same time?

PS. There's nothing wrong with just saying he is before all. Without inserting either word. That is the true translation. If he was eternal there is no problem with this. Matter of fact that is why Paul spoke it this way. Inserting THINGS or OTHER is someone's bias opinion and not part of the Greek Scripture.

Your arguement is that words that don't exist trump the actual text.

http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testame ... ans/1.html

See the greek. It's understandable exactly what is being said. The only reason the word things is inserted is just to make good sounding english. But that word itself is fiction.

The greek literal trumps all. Including all translations.

by **Rotherham** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:17 pm

by **truthseeker** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:30 pm

Yes if it is not disclosed to the reader in advance. They are wrong for doing that. Newer translations are now changing the color of the words to let the reader know it does not exist or has been inserted.

Your 1984 nwt translation was honest and put the word other in brackets letting reader know it was WTS opinion. Now they removed that to hide it from the reader that there are two insertions.

These older bibles that do insert the word "things" are acceptable if it doesn't change the true meaning.

All things
And
all other things

Are two different meanings entirely.

Your question is flawed because even these older translations are honest enough to just extend the word ALL by adding things.

WT literally lies to the reader inserting TWO words.

Because to use the Moffat bible as support you can only insert the word Other without the word Things.

So it would read he is before all other....
Which makes no sense.

Which is why no one else inserts other.

Because to be intellectually honest with the translation you have to pick one word only. Other or things.

Which is why you cannot find any scriptural support or scholarly support for the WT erroneous and irresponsible insertion of two words.

by **Rotherham** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:36 pm

by **truthseeker** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:48 pm

He is before all...period.

John 1:3 tells us all was made by him and not one thing that exists would exist if it wasnt because of him.

It's air tight.

Since it is common sense and a logical absurdity that the maker of All doesn't include himself nothing else needs to be added.

I do like how you avoided the questions though...im still waiting for your support.

by **Rotherham** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:50 pm

by **Rotherham** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:51 pm

by **truthseeker** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:56 pm

No...pay attention.

All is obviously classified as anything created by him.

You are trying broaden the scope of all things to include God and Jesus.

You have bad logic.

If I'm the one who creates x. Then I can be before x. Because I'm not included in x because I'm the creator of x. X had a time when it didn't exist. So All in the context of creation is reserved to anything that was created by Jesus. This very greek wording is pro Jesus as the creator and uncreated himself.

This is why all OTHER things is not in John 1:3 either.

by **Rotherham** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:05 pm

You're actually proving my point. I'll explain why in a moment

by **truthseeker** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:10 pm

You are flip flopping.

Because that would mean there are ZERO raw materials.

You are and have been and still are in Checkmate

by **Rotherham** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:16 pm

by **truthseeker** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:19 pm

Let's say you already exist. And X are things that have come into existence by you, if so then naturally "X" excludes anything that pre-existed to X coming into existence by you.

riddle solved...There are only TWO CATEGORIES. Things before X and things part of X.

Anything created is part of X, and anything NOT created is excluded from X.

John 1:3

X came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existence

LOGIC

1. The father pre-existed before X came into existence
2. Jesus existed before X came into existence, because Jesus is the one who brought X (created things) into existence. He could not bring things that already existed into existence. That's a logical absurdity.

Colossians 1:17 New International Version (NIV) <====Is saying the same thing as John 1:3

17 He is before X, and in him X hold together.

This is consistent. There can only be TWO CATEGORIES.

You are creating THREE CATEGORIES and claiming that it's the same as TWO.

Category Three: "All Other things."

By inserting OTHER it automatically means All Things other than the things Jesus created. Or "OTHER than X"

This is a direct conflict with John 1:3 and math in word problem form because Jesus is part of the Category "Pre-existed prior X". Anything that is part of X defaults to automatically to being created and coming from Jesus. There is ZERO room for ALL OTHER THINGS as a category or Things other than X. The logic doesn't allow it.

This is why no scholar will back your nonsense, or why you cannot find a bible on the planet that translates Col 1:16-17 with all OTHER things. It's a logical absurdity. It can not exist without conflicting with John 1:3 or the content logic.

1. If all things that exist, exist only from Jesus, or they could not exist. Then there is no ALL OTHER THINGS. It's impossible! Laughably absurdly impossible! You have been duped into believing this nonsense. Which is why even Moffat doesn't mess with the text and leaves it consistent with every translation. Because it's the only way it can be translated without being intentionally dishonest about it.

2. Adding all other things creates a huge problem, a problem where there is another set of "THINGS" besides "ALL THINGS" that Jesus brought into existence. Which is impossible because there are no other things that could exist according to John 1:3. They are either part of the group that pre-existed before X was created or they are part of X...period.

You're clutching at straws. You have been in checkmate and still haven't gotten out.

There is no escaping it. Do it on paper. Draw boxes based on John 1:3.

Box one.
Jesus not part of all things automatically. He goes in box one.

ALL things are what Jesus created. So they come from Jesus. They are automatically in box 2.

If you want to be cute....and say what about God? Since God is not created by Jesus he goes into the same box as Jesus.

Jesus and God are in the box labeled "before all things". All things are box 2 which holds everything else besides them. Period. A 12 year old can do this. try it. SEE...for yourself.

Try drawing with yours. There is no room for ALL other things. Where are these "other" things in John 1:3? None the text does not allow it. Obviously were are speaking of Jesus himself, but he unfortunately is in Box A. There is no Box C by the context.

You lose.

This solves your true meaning of firstborn. It is the term for Jesus used by God when he begotten him after the Resurrection. it is the fulfillment of the prophecy of David "i will MAKE" him my first born, not he is my firstborn already.

Colossians 1:15-17 I'm going to paraphrase what the meaning here really is. There is no room for ALL other things.

15 The Son is right now (in present tense, which after his Resurrection) an exact replica of the original invisible God, This carbon copy of God is the first to be begotten by God of all creatures.

WHY is he the first to be begotten?

Because inside of Jesus all things were created (by God): <====Yes it literally means in or inside Jesus. Ha! This is talking about God creating. So did god create ALL OTHER things inside Jesus?

things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all these things have been created (inside Jesus) then through Jesus and for Jesus. 17 Jesus is before all of these things came into existence (john 1:3), and inside Jesus all of these things still hold together.

That's what it means. You cannot over turn this.

by **Rotherham** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:59 am

by **truthseeker** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:25 pm

by **Rotherham** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:10 pm

by **Rotherham** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:21 pm

Question:

Since the firstborn son was the heir, if Jesus is not the firstborn son, why then is he the heir of all things? Also, who would be the real firstborn creation?

by **Rotherham** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:39 pm

Since I don't think you're ever going to grasp what I am saying, why don't we set this one aside for awhile, as we have done other points, and move onto another one, such as, "Who is the God of the Son after he is back in heaven?"

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:13 am

by **Rotherham** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:33 am

Well you've kind of exploded again and going off in a number of directions prematurely, as usual.

If you want to stay on this topic that is fine with me because you have not answered the tensions that have been created for you anyway. You think you have but you haven't.

Let me explain for you one more time why your explanation of Col. 1:15,16 does not work. And please, this time, without defaulting to a hundred different points, many of which are unrelated, please just directly answer the questions. All of these claims of victory and checkmate are just childish, immature antagonisms and you once apologized for that kind of behavior and now it seems to be your main mode of operation. So please, if we want anything worthwhile to come from this discussion let's step back, take a breath and take another run at it and just directly answer the questions asked. Okay?

You claim, if I understand you correctly, that Jesus was not the true firstborn of creation in the sense of being born, but rather he became the firstborn because he became a man and entered the realm of creation, and became the "preeminent" creation by that direction. That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.

Verse 16 GIVES US THE REASON that he is the firstborn. You can't replace that with another reason when it already supplies the reason, and that's what you keep doing. You are replacing the reason he is the firstborn and ignoring the actual stated reason in the Bible.

The actual reason he is the firstborn of creation is given as follows: Because all else was created by means of him. That's the reason. Notice there is no mention of him becoming a man and becoming the pre-eminent creation because he became a creation. That's simply not in there. But the real reason is.

The straight forward logic of the sentence is quite easily understood. Jesus, as a creation, was instrumental in creating all else, so by logical necessity, he is the first. There is nothing in the HOTI clause that supports or allows your explanation. So please explain the HOTI clause and how it supports your explanation.

We will get to the rest of your explosion later.

Rotherham

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:39 am

by **Rotherham** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:55 am

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:29 pm

In other words you are stuck and can't answer...because there's really no way out.

If you want I will just ask you yes or no questions so you can understand.

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:32 pm

Let me know. Name one scattered thought or contradiction or something that is out of place im happy to isolate and clarify it.. I noticed you failed to do so. Instead of just making a sweeping statement that my arguement is disjointed. Point out one thing that doesn't make sense or is disjointed.

by **Rotherham** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:05 pm

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:39 pm

Go ahead. You quit. It's your idea. So you go first.

by **Rotherham** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:46 pm

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:55 pm

Why? What are you afraid of? I'm a guest. You are the one that quit without pointing out an example or showing a valid reason.

Courtesy is to let me get last post is it not?

(I've never heard of such a thing.)

by **Rotherham** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:06 pm

by **Rotherham** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:09 pm

Both summaries will then contain a link to other person's summary so one summary does not trump the other in position.

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:19 pm

Okay....that's fine. I will come back to this later on I have to attend to something work related. I will let you know when I'm done with my summary. Then just let me know what to do from there.

by **Rotherham** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:21 pm

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:28 pm

by **truthseeker** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:08 pm

by **Rotherham** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:51 am

I will respond to this in my summary.

by **Rotherham** » Mon May 02, 2016 2:29 pm

I will insert my response here when you post yours. That way yours will be listed last as requested. Let me know when you are ready so we can synchronize our posts. A link to the other's summary will be included at the end of each summary. Once posted the forum will immediately close so be sure all editing and corrections are done when you post.

Regards,
Rotherham

by **truthseeker** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:54 pm

I need until the weekend. I'm working double shifts all this week. I'm done with summary but I just want to relax a little. Then come back to it with fresh eyes and make final edits since it's my last post.

by **Rotherham** » Tue May 03, 2016 6:57 am

by **truthseeker** » Thu May 05, 2016 8:32 pm

I'm not going to be discussing mindcontrol tactics and deception in my summary only the contradictions in the theology you presented.

But since you are painting me as someone who has a problem with Jehovah Witnesses "the people" you are mistaken. They don't know what they are truly involved in. And I find they are very nice. As far as the corporation goes, using unethical tactics on their members is best left to the experts.

Steve Hassan is a good resource for manipulation tactics used by compliance groups including scientology, christadelphians, moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc... He doesn't really go into religious beliefs or doctrine. He specializes in exposing the deceptive tactics these groups use to covertly manipulate their members. His book is called "Combating Cult Mind Control".

If that last post stays then this post stays as you plant I have some kind of axe to grind, you are mistaken in my defense to your accusation I will let the experts give their opinion. I'm just sticking to the nonsense and contradictions in your arguements and the holes it leaves in regards to this topic headline.

PS. According to Steve Hassan his first book did not include Jehovah Witnesses. He thought they were a normal church until he was contacted by members who read his book about the moonies. After he studied the Watchtower group for years he was able to confirm that they are indeed using the 8 tactics plus information control used by compliance and deception experts so he included them in his latest book. Anyone wanting more info about these tactics should look him up. My posts and summary are sticking to the corruption of scripture and doctrine.

So if you want to leave your last post up then you need to leave this one up as my defense. Or take them both down. And let's just stick to the summaries.

My summary is almost done. Need a couple more days.

by **Rotherham** » Fri May 06, 2016 6:52 am

by **Rotherham** » Fri May 13, 2016 1:30 pm

Everything OK?

by **truthseeker** » Fri May 13, 2016 2:25 pm

Yeah I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way to post a link to an old post where it takes you directly to the post and not the whole page. I don't want to quote as it makes the post too long. That's pretty much only thing holding me up.

by **Rotherham** » Fri May 13, 2016 3:01 pm

by **truthseeker** » Thu May 19, 2016 8:39 am

I'll be ready to post my summary but i need time to transfer it from MS Word to this forum as none of my underlining or or color changing will cut and paste. So i need like 15 minutes. Let me know when to post.

by **Rotherham** » Fri May 20, 2016 7:00 am

by **Rotherham** » Fri May 20, 2016 7:52 am

If by chance the order gets messed up, I will correct it quickly.

by **Rotherham** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:26 am

Problems?

by **truthseeker** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:51 am

Yeah had to take my computer apart. Couldn't post from my mobile phone. I'm good. Let's post now.

by **Rotherham** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:53 am

by **Rotherham** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 10:26 am

Rotherham's Summary

The discussion was far from over but there comes a time when the antagonism and grandstanding become so much, that there isn't much reason to continue. Because of that I decided to pull the plug.

I don't really see much to summarize other than to say that if any reader actually undertakes the task of trying to read through this mess, I congratulate them for their tenacity. It is quite a trip to say the least. I do not believe that my opponent successfully navigated the problems that were presented to him in regard to Col. 1:15-17, although I am certain he will claim victory in numerous ways, with a few declared "checkmates" along the way, in his summary. I also do not believe he made any point against our position of John 1:3.

So, in summary of this very elongated and difficult to follow conversation with truthseeker I will attempt to point out to him and of course, any interested readers, why I believe that truthseeker's take on Col. 1:15-18 is incorrect, and his take on John 1:3 is simply unnecessary. I will try to break it down in sections and explain it and weigh the arguments against established Biblical precedent.

As far as John 1:3 is concerned, my opponent did not seem to be able to grasp that the "all things" in the passage refer to "all things" AFTER the Son "came to be". With that possibility of interpretation, there is no point for him to have. As I mentioned in our discussion I will mention again:

Coming into John 1:1-3, we must realize that it is talking about a time period where the Son already exists. The passage even allows for that understanding if you take "WAS" as an ingressive aorist verb, which it very well could be because it is indeed in the aorist, which by the way, is NOT strictly PAST TENSE. In other words, John 1:1 could just as easily read "In the beginning the Word CAME TO BE (the ingressive form of WAS).

With that understood the rest is painless. Verse 3 simply points out that ALL THINGS, AFTER the Son CAME TO BE, came through HIM, everything.

However, this does not rule out that the Father during this same time period, supplied the Son with the raw materials to complete the finished products.

You must keep in mind that the word THINGS is not in the Greek, just the word ALL, which means we have to figure out what ALL is meant. I submit that it means ALL FINISHED PRODUCT and all the complaining in the world will not disprove that.

1. The Son was created DURING the BEGINNING.

2. The Father created all RAW MATERIALS for all things to be completed by the Son during this same time.

3. The Son made all things with the raw materials.

4. The all things refer to the finished products, not the raw materials. Nothing demands that it refers to the RAW MATERIALS. This harmonizes perfectly with 1 Cor. 8:6.

At this point, before proceeding to Col. 1:15, I would like to reiterate that established Biblical precedent should be the final say so in any theological discussion. If we follow that course, then we are allowing God himself to be the interpreter as far as it possible to do. Otherwise, if we allow human invention or reasoning to be the interpreter, we will forever be lost in a quagmire of different ideas.

So, let's begin.

Colossians 1:15 with the phrase "firstborn OF creation". How has God directed, from his words, for us to understand this phrase. What we have grammatically, is the word "firstborn" (Greek-prototokos) followed by a genitive noun. This kind of phrase with the word firstborn occurs about 30 times in the scriptures and therefore provides a sufficient database to be able to determine what it means.

In each and every case where the word "firstborn OF something" occurs, that firstborn is ALWAYS a PART of the following group. There are no exceptions. The divinely precedented meaning then is that Jesus Christ is part of creation. Any other explanation or meaning given to that phrase is nothing more than human invention and has no Biblical precedent to support it.

My opponent has taken the position that the verse should read "firstborn OVER creation". That is human invention when compared to how the phrase is used throughout the Bible and in the same context. First off, NOWHERE is this construction rendered as OVER with the following genitive noun in the Bible. And nowhere is the word OVER found in the original language in connection with this phrase. That is a prime example of human invention and flying in the face of Biblical precedent when it comes to rendition.
Clearly, in my opponents mind, Biblical precedent does not take first place, but rather any massaging of words necessary to maintain a pet idea is what rules.

By rendering it this way, my opponent hopes to stress the "preeminent" connotation that sometimes accompanies the word firstborn, because the firstborn male in the Israelite family had special privileges. He admits that Jesus is PART of creation by saying that he BECAME part of creation when he became a man, and became the firstborn of the NEW creation by being the first to be resurrected, and therefore the firstborn of creation in that sense. But this requires some special gymnastics to even wrap your head around it as I will explain.

The word firstborn in a genitive phrase, NEVER just highlights the preeminence of the subject, but ALWAYS highlights the ORDER of its birth. So even if truthseeker wants to focus on the pre-eminence, he can not discount the ORDER of the birth, and invariably, the ORDER of the birth is the FIRST ONE BORN of the following genitive. The entire context of Col. 1:15-18 highlights not only pre-eminence, but ORDER. Again, Biblical pattern proves this beyond doubt.

Now, my opponent admits the ORDER when it comes to him being the firstborn of the NEW creation, but completely discards it when it comes to the firstborn of ALL creation as mentioned in verse 15 and 16. The HOTI clause on verse 16 PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that what is referred to as "creation" is certainly NOT JUST the NEW creation, but ALL creation, clear back to the beginning of time. Notice how it describes ALL creation: "in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities." This undeniably includes more than just the NEW creation.

So verse 15 and 16 prove that Jesus is not just the pre-eminent creation clear back to the beginning of time, but is the FIRSTBORN when it comes to ORDER. Biblical precedent solidly establishes this as the case. My opponent thinks that by finding someway to make the Son PART of creation is all he needs to do, then he can just highlight the pre-eminent part, but he ignores Biblical precedent and immediate context to do so. He admits ORDER when it comes to the OTHER phrases that incorporate the word FIRST, or BEGINNING or FIRSTBORN in the same context but then DENIES order when it comes to the phrase "firstborn of all creation" in verse 15. Rather than relying on Biblical precedent and context, he is clearly guilty of human invention and making arbitrary and unwarranted divisions.

As the Bible clearly states, Jesus is the firstborn, BOTH IN ORDER OF TIME AND PRECEDENT, of ALL creation, not just the new. My opponent can only admit to half of that statement, the pre-eminent half, but it is the other half, the order of time half, that disproves him.

Notice the other phrases in the same context and what they mean, that incorporate the word FIRST or BEGINNING.

Verse 17 says "He is BEFORE all things". This is an undeniable reference to ORDER. Even my opponent will not deny this.

Verse 18 says: "he is the head of the body, the congregation". Now this clearly describes authority or preeminence but notice what word is used. NOT firstborn, NOT beginning, NOT first, but rather HEAD.

Verse 18 also says: "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead". Even if these words are hinting at pre-eminence, they can not be divorced from their primary meanings. They are not only pre-eminent, but are the BEGINNING, the FIRSTBORN in relation to ORDER. My opponent does not deny this because he says this is what makes him the FIRST one of he NEW CREATION, referring to both pre-eminence AND order. However, when it comes to verse 15, he completely divorces the primary meaning of ORDER from the word "firstborn" and tries to get us to believe it is JUST pre-eminence. Since when can one simply strip a word of its primary meaning when the entire context and every other Biblical instance is stressing that primary meaning? This is pure human invention and evasion. Biblical precedent and context destroy truthseeker's human invention for the sake of evasion of the truth. Someday I hope he actually lives up to his moniker that he has chosen to identify himself.

Verse 18 then says: "so that he might become the one who is first in all things;" The meaning is clearly in reference to pre-eminence AND order of time, not just one or the other but that is what my opponent would have us believe when it comes to verse 15 and the phrase "firstborn of ALL creation". In so doing, he denies Biblical precedent and context and that should be the determining factor in any interpretation.

My opponent goes on to criticize the use of the word other in the phrase "all things" making up some rule that you can't insert two English words to clarify the meaning of something, only one. I would hope the reader would see the immediate folly and "out-of-the-blue" nature of such a claim. Numerous translations admit of the insertion of "other" into the text where just PAS or PANTAS occurs, and of course the word THINGS is also often inserted to clarify. One perfect example of where "all other things" would explicitly clarify what is being said is Col. 1:17 in the very same context. Anyone should readily see that saying "He is before all other things" is nothing more than a clarification and in no way changes the meaning of the phrase.

He also criticizes the use of "by means of" claiming that it is an invalid rendition of the word "en" in Greek. His conclusion is "no way." All one has to do is to check a lexicon and they will see that such a conclusion is arbitrary and unwarranted, and frankly, incorrect. One of the acceptable renditions of EN is listed as "BY MEANS OF" referring to instrumentation. So "no way" becomes "yes way".

I hope that someday my opponent will become more interested in pursuing the actual truth of something than the desire to win an argument. Relying on human invention, antagonism, grandstanding tactics and denying Biblical precedent are all tell-tale signs of that malady.

Regards,
Rotherham

PROCEED TO TRUTHSEEKER'S SUMMARY viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&p=8197#p8197

by **truthseeker** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 10:40 am

My opponent has a very conflicting theology and confused God.

There are two summaries needed. The first is in regards to my debate with RM and the second to fulfill the TITLE of this DEBATE for the reader. A lot of time was wasted getting nowhere and I didn’t want the reader to feel mislead by the TITLE as the debate got hung up by RM refusing to accept the plain and simple logic of specific scriptures.

Part 1 is the summary to RM’s nonsensical argument about John 1:3, Col 1:15-19 etc…

Part 2 summarizes the TITLE as to not cheat the reader out of the argument that never got a chance to fully unfold.

SUMMARY (Part 1 - MY DEBATE WITH ROTHERHAM)

RM has a logically absurd theology. One that Jehovah Witnesses don’t even teach. He actually makes things up to cover up where the JW doctrines fall short but still a complete contradiction in it of itself. Anyone honest with themselves can benefit from looking at this debate unbiased against the simple logic and see that RMs defense falls apart. Just use logical deduction, just like a math problem. If you deduct one from two you are logically left with only one. The same can be done with scriptures leaving RM with no way out. But first consider the implications of his arguments thus far.

If RMs theology is true then there’s a big problem, because:

RM has a God who claims he created everything alone, all by himself, with no help, Isaiah 44:24
but then admits that it was actually Jesus who helped him out. Hebrews 1:2

RM has a God who claims he created everything with his own hands, (alone with no help), Isaiah 44:24, Job 9:8
but then he says it was Jesus hands that actually did creation. Hebrews 1:10

RM claims Jesus made everything it was finished product, but then again it really wasn’t finished because after Jesus created FINISHED PRODUCT, it really wasn't finished because God now had to take over and stretch out the earth and heavens with his own hands. RMs version is clearly a physical co-creation, meaning physically manipulating things into existence and form.

Which is Impossible! As you just saw in Isaiah 44:24 and Job 9:8. There was no physical help. Only one God physically did it alone.

RM has a God who said the world to come was not to be subjected to Angels (Hebrews 2:5)but then his God gives the world to his angel Michael to subject it to him. But there is a problem, no Angel has ever been called a son, ever! (Hebrews 1:4–5, 13) So how could Jesus have been an angel? (He has no answer for this.)

He has a God who claims never to be seen by any man, yet his God is seen all over the old testament. (They saw the God of Israel and his feet.) Exodus 24:11, Isaiah 6:5 Genesis 32:30, Numbers 12:8, etc.. Yet compare John 1:18 and John 6:46
RM’s theology makes Jesus a liar or Moses a liar. (He has to invent an answer.)

RM has a God who claims he created everything for himself, for his own inheritance but then contradicts himself and says it was created for Jesus so that Jesus could be an heir and have an inheritance.

He has no answer for how the Most High can inherit his own property? All throughout the OT there is a Jehovah who has an inheritance. See this post which scared the wits out of RM causing him to want to end the debate. viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&p=8166#p8048

RM has a God who brought raw materials into existence, but yet scripture says all things that came into existence, came into via Jesus alone, without him not one thing that existed, came into existence. John 1:3 (Even Jehovah Witnesses do not teach this.)
So he has things that came into existence before anything that came into existence existed. (a logical absurdity)

RM has a God that has created a firstborn son (angel) in the beginning, knows he’s a firstborn son but then proceeds to make David his firstborn over his real firstborn. Violating his own law that the order of a firstborn cannot be changed. Psalm 89:27

This would mean there are two firstborns at the time of David. This contradicts the LAW that says a firstborn cannot be rearranged or changed. The firstborn is the firstborn…period. Only by death can the inheritance rights change or be passed on. Deut 21:15-19 (He has no answer for this hypocrisy.)

RM claims Firstborn in Col 1:15 means first created, even though there is no such use of the word firstborn in the New or old Testament ever. EVER! He cannot find a single use of firstborn that that supports his view. All the uses of firstborn are after Jesus resurrection or being birthed as a child. He has no scriptural witnesses. It is always associated with birthing. And begotten is birthing. Today I have begotten you. Means Today I GIVE BIRTH TO YOU. When he brings his firstborn into the world. Hebrews 1:5-6 couldn’t be any clearer. You can’t have a firstborn in the world if you have to bring one into the world. Simple logic…again…RM just ignores this. Like it doesn’t exist.

RM does not acknowledge the present tense or timing of the word firstborn in Col 1:15. Colossians can be turned into a simple math or logic equation.

1. We see that Jesus is the Carbon Copy of God in the Greek text. This means he is not an original but a copy of the original. This implies Jesus is created at the time of Paul’s statement. This is critical.

2. Paul’s statement is taking place AFTER the resurrection and is in the present tense.

3. Meaning at the time of Pauls statement Jesus is two things….Right NOW as we speak 1.) He is a carbon copy of God and he is in the present also the Firstborn of all creation at that very moment.

4. Remember…it bears repeating…When is this moment taking place? After the resurrection.

5. Jesus gave up EVERYTHING in Philippians 2 to become human. He was nothing and had nothing. Not titles, no status, no rewards, he even had the possibility of failing at his mission. He could not be a firstborn. Just as Hebrews 1:5-6 says the firstborn had to begotten or born and brought into the world.

6. David died. In death you lose all property, all status, all titles, all rewards. The dead know nothing. David lost his firstborn status. Jesus also died. There is no way he could have any titles, rank, anything or be anything because he was dead. It would all have to be given to him. He couldn’t even be a son anymore. Notice in the present tense Jesus is begotten and made a son, TODAY…TODAY..TODAY…I have begotten you at that very moment at his resurrection. Why? Because in death he lost even his status as human son? That is what death is. Loss. Gone. Cease to exist. Unless stage 2 takes place. Which is resurrection. Which is being born again. No one can enter the kingdom unless he is born again…period. John 3:5

There are no scriptures supporting his firstborn view. Not one.

All relevant uses of firstborn and including the timeframe of Paul’s statement is in reference to the son after his resurrection. This includes his scripture where Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God in Rev 3:14. This statement is also after the resurrection. And is consistent and supports that it was in fact Jesus that physically created everything in john 1:3. So logically if that is true then Rev 3:14 is the very first time God the father actually physically creates something. Jesus is God’s very first creation starting at the resurrection and going forward.

RM’s philosophy leaves unfulfilled prophecies. According to his version Jesus did not receive ALL the blessings of David. One of the blessings was to become the firstborn. RM says Jesus was in fact already the firstborn. This is nonsense because PSALM 2:7 prophesied “you are my son, today I have birthed you.” And that only came true after resurrection.

Jesus is literally born after his resurrection. That is what begotten means.

When presented that both of these scripture is after the resurrection he is blank and reaches for what he calls the HOTI (Col 1:16) clause which if you strip away his bad logic it works totally against him. He only points out the first part of verse 16 but fails to see there is a second part which calls Jesus an heir.

The HOTI clause can be summed up to this. Why is Jesus the firstborn? Because all things have been created FOR HIM….period. Everything else is immaterial.

It’s the very last words of this verse that he ignores completely but yet they are the very REASON and the Support for the very meaning of FIRSTBORN in verse 15. Jesus is being made HEIR to fulfill prophecy from the very beginning of all things being created for him. Jesus is the Jehovah that I get’s the inheritance. Israel is a people of his inheritance. And only the firstborn has the right to this inheritance. And it is an eternal inheritance. So someone who is going to die cannot get an eternal inheritance. He had to become immortal and get the blessings of David, become the firstborn, to fulfill the prophecy. Fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 2:7.

So this is why he could not answer my LOGIC question about “is PAUL speaking nonsense”. I posted it several times and he ignored it again like it didn’t exist. See it this post again. Scroll down to the spaghetti example.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&start=100#p8055

It destroys RM’s argument and he just covers his eyes, ignores it completely. It just straight denial.

Even more:

The translators of the New World Translation corrupt Col 1:15-18 by inserting the word other into the text 4 times. No honest bible does this. Because the original Greek only uses the word ALL. And does not have the word THINGS as part of the text. So depending on the context, the translator has the choice between adding the word THINGS or the word OTHER as seen in other scriptures. However, there is no justification to insert both words at the same time. It is a complete fraud. And RM cannot find a single scripture or translator that endorses such a misleading irresponsible translation. It is a direct contradiction with the Jehovah of the OT so they had to alter the text to fit their theology, and since RM is not allowed to disagree with the WT he has to create fantasies to make their interpretation work:

Compare the true translation:

Col 1:16
… All [things] have been created by him (Jesus) and for him.

Isaiah 43:21 (NIV)
21 the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.

Notice Jehovah formed the people for who? For himself. Notice Jesus created all things, which includes the people for who? Oh how about that…for himself. RM has a contradiction. Because he claims this Jehovah is not Jesus.

According to RM’s theology the Father is a wishy washy God who competes with Jesus.

But as we can easily discern this is not true. There is only one author and one actual physical creator and the above are both about Jesus as creator and God of OT.

Indisputable evidence:

Malachi 2:10
Do we not all have one Father? Did not one (EL) God (singular) create us?.

There you have it. Smoking Gun evidence that Only one God fathered or authored us. And only one God physically created us. (There could not be raw materials shot into Jesus, then come out as finished product, that then again had to be finished by God. That’s two creators. So then he tries to spilt hairs to say Jesus is just the maker and God is the creator. But his also makes no sense.)

One could argue that Malachi was talking about the same person, but that is absurd because we are told there is a physical creator Jehovah who created everything alone:

Compare:

Isaiah 44:24
I am YHWH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Job 9:8
He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

So there is only ONE Actual Physical Creator…period.

It has to be the Father or Jesus. It cannot be both.

Because scripture isolates the actual creator and tells us who actually created everything, whoever this God is, this God did it physically, with his own hands by himself. [/color]

By process of elimination…

Hebrews 1:10
He also says (to the son), "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 19:1
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Isaiah 48:13
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?

It was Jesus hands that did the creation as the father testifies this himself. So it could not be the father’s hands. This destroys his one is the creator and one is the maker and his raw materials shot into Jesus nonsense.

Compare:
Isaiah 66:2
Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into existance?" <==Parallel to John 1:3

John 1:3
All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

We know that there is not a single thing that got brought into existence, that wasn’t done so by Jesus. It was Jesus hands, and he did it alone. All by himself with no help as Isaiah and Job says.

Psalm 95:5
The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land. Again this Came into existence and it did so by hands. Therefore, it’s Jesus.
Anything that came into existence did so via Jesus. The father himself testifies the heavens are the work of Jesus hands.

Job 12:7-10
9“Who among all these does not know That the hand of YHWH has done this,
10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

This clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt makes Jesus the sole physical creator Jehovah of the old testament. As Malachi said only One God authored us and only one God created us and as confirmed by Isaiah 44:25 and Job 9:8.

This means firstborn does not mean the same as first created. It means Jesus was uncreated in the beginning.

All the evidence is against RM’s philosophy and stitching of the scriptures. Worst is still the blatant fiction and fantasy that the father created raw materials to shoot into Jesus. This takes the cake.

This is eliminated easily as we see Col 1:16 and look at the true meaning in the Greek interlinear shows God created ALL Things INSIDE Jesus. (Not all other things). This verse is simply another way of saying God is working inside and Jesus is copying what he sees the father doing. This is consistence with Jesus saying he only does what he sees the father doing and why he is working because his father is always working. The father is in me and I in the father. Again RM doesn’t like this. He hates this. He needs Jesus to be an Angel, not united with God but a mere soldier taking orders.

RM needs to go back to square one and stop believing in nonsense published by men.

He had 3 scriptures that are taken out of context to back Jesus is created. All of which are easily overturned.
1. Proverbs…Wisdom is simply personified in proverbs.

2. Col 1:15 is destroyed by his own HOTI clause, the logic, the context of creation, death, the law, Greek interlinear, and prophecy fulfillment, etc… All expose his erroneous view.

3. And the context of the OT scriptures above as Jesus being the only physical creator and the God of Israel smashes his final straw that revelation 3:14 proves Jesus is created and Jesus is first created.

The context shows Jesus joined creation when he became human, he became part of his own creation to be resurrected, and after this was the very first time God ever created anything because as we see above we have logically deduced that only one God created all things by himself with no help. Like a simple math problem, it can only be Jesus.

In closing... RM claiming that the YHWH in all these OT text’s is not Jesus is the most ridiculous self-contradicting theology anyone has ever heard. He has to make excuses, literally invent things such as raw materials being shot into Jesus and then Jesus made the finished product…

…which by the way is not really the finished product because God the father then has to stretch everything out with his own hands but then tells us that it was Jesus hands…and even though not one thing that exists, is able to exist without Jesus, RM has things that came into existence that didn’t come from Jesus…yada yada it’s all a mess. And it's not biblical. It’s fiction. He has no scriptural backing. He just has to assume it’s true otherwise his whole identity is at stake. He would rather go on believing nonsense that accept that the scripture is plain and simple. And fine without his raw materials.

It's an example of how teachings found in corporate religions that are untrue thrive because the individual’s identity is tied to the group and not to the real truth (at all costs). Manipulative groups use unethical compliance techniques, deception, logical fallacies, fear, shunning, and totalitarian control over members while the leaders build a real estate empire and invest in the stock market behind the scenes.

Most important, these religions take away Christ as the mediator and true savior of all men and replace him with the human leader or leadership of the organization as their only hope of salvation. So leadership puts itself in the place of Jesus and reduce Jesus to mere angel or just a prophet or guru. It’s tragic. But that’s what happens when the number one doctrine is obedience at all costs for the sake of unity verses using your own gift for critical thinking. This is called “the ends justify the means.” Their motto is if we have to lie, cheat, hurt, shun, for the sake of unity…so be it. Unity over truth. The bible teaches truth over unity (and if there’s unity, then it’s because of truth which is Christ.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary (Part 2 - In regards to the title of this debate.)

I have maintained that Jesus is the Jehovah/YHWH of the Old Testament. He is the David’s Lord and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God that brought Israel of Egypt. This can all be seen by connecting Jesus to Jehovah through creation and logically deducing that the God of Israel could not, and cannot possibly be the father. (Jesus is a separate Jehovah/YHWH and he is not the father.)

Jesus is not an Angel, nor is he part of a trinity. Both are absurd and conflict with the scriptures.

ANGEL SAFELY ELIMINATED: (RM has no answer for this.)
The world was not created for angels. Hebrews 2:5
And no angel has ever been called a son, ever. Hebrews 1:5

TRINITY SAFELY ELIMINATED:
(I will not show how, because I do not want to give cults that denounce Jesus a quick edge to confuse Christians who do not know their bible. Just know that it’s absurd and in your heart you know there is no such thing as 3 people in one person. Nor is God a committee. I don’t want to give the scriptures as JWs could use this to recruit unsuspecting Christians into the cult. But he trinity can be safely eliminated in 3 scriptures beyond a shadow of a doubt. But the trinity is much closer to the truth than Jesus being a subordinate angel is. In the Trinity Jesus still has his Godhood and is God just as God is God. The concept of equality is preserved. In cults they denigrate Jesus and take him away as the mediator so that the cult leadership steps in to take Jesus place as man's mediator and savior.)

Monotheism is a lie. There are many Gods. There was a time when the nations were divided by the Most HIGH and each was given their own God. However, these Gods all failed and were Judged in Psalm 82.

Every scripture that claims there is only one God is claiming there is only one ELOHIM. That is a plural word. Elohim is a God unity made up of two YHWHs whom later become the Father and the Son. The word ONE in the bible is elusive. We see two but the term is ONE. ONE flesh, Father and I are ONE. There is ONE YHWH. ONE can represent unity. In that unity, One is the Author of ALL things and the other is the Doer of ALL things making ONE creation.

The true relationship between Jesus and the Father is of this order.
1. Two separate YHWHs existed from eternity. (There are two YHWHs in the OT.)

2. This is hidden as the divine name is covered up by inserting the word “THE LORD” everywhere the word YHWH appears in the OT. But is easily seen in any Hebrew interlinear.

3. YHWH1 is the Author of ALL things (Father).

4. YHWH2 is the Creator of ALL things (Jesus).

5. Together they are a unity, with YHWH1 dwelling and working inside YHWH2.

6. YHWH2 is the seen. YHWH1 is the unseen. They are together Elohim. (A plural God unity)

7. These scriptures are all two or more but mean UNITY. The Lord (Yahweh) our God (Elohim) (plural) is One. The father and I are one. Yahweh is one. That you may be one. (Adam and Eve) are one flesh. There are Two but one. It means unity. This is a hard to grasp concept.

8. Here ONE means a single digit. But for us there is only one God the father.... and only one Lord (Master) Jesus Christ. (1 Corinth 8:6) See the difference... Whenever something is "ONE" it's a unity. Whenever there is "but one" or "only one" or the word "one" in front of the subject of the sentence it means a numerical singular.

8. Both are eternal and are uncreated. And love and respect each other from eternity.

9. Since YHWH2 is not created, nor was he born, he is not the firstborn of YHWH1.

10. The two YHWHs want to start a family and they themselves become a family.

11. A covenant is made between the two YHWHs and a plan to become family and start a family.

12. YHWH1 authors all creation. It’s his idea so therefore it’s all his property and part of his plan making him the father of creation.

13. The YHWH2 is to become the son and be the heir of YHWH1’s property. It’s is an inheritance.

14. Because YHWH1 is the author and owner of all creation, YHWH2 has no property rights even though he is the physical creator. Only the author owns all creation.

15. It is not that YHWH1 is the leader or the most powerful God. Both YHWH’s are equal. They are actually twins. (in our image) (whoever has seen me has seen the father)

16. It is property rights and the plan that makes YHWH1 in charge. YHWH2 has agreed to be the LORD or the MASTER AND CHIEF over the mission. It’s the role he gladly takes on.

17. One problem, Adam and Eve doomed the plan and all of mankind. The plan B of salvation and restoring mankind went into action.

18. The nations are divided, languages are confounded, and each nation received their own god to worship.

19. YHWH2 is given ALL AUTHORITY over his portion of the allotted property. He starts with Abraham and a promise then he becomes God of Israel.

20. This makes him the MASTER or Lord, with power of attorney over YHWH1’s property which makes him their ONLY GOD. He is their only God, they have no other besides this united Elohim.

21. Israel did not have access to YHWH1 only YHWH2. Which is why YHWH2 was David’s Lord.

22. This same relationship is played out when YHWH2 becomes the human Jesus.

23. Jesus is endowed with YHWH1 just like he was when he was YHWH2 the God of Israel.

24. Israel has never seen YHWH1. However they have seen YHWH2 many times in Old Testament.

25. Jesus is an heir. All creation is not his property. It is his inheritance. But he is given all authority over it. He has no real property rights. But he is still the exact same nature as YHWH1. Same power. Same wisdom. In the old testament they are equal in every physical way other than ownership of property and the roles they play in the divine plan. Everything was done voluntarily.

26. This is why Jesus calls the father the true God, as legally everything belongs to YHWH1 and Jesus is only the caretaker of the estate and was appointed MASTER or LORD over YHWH1’s property and not the true owner of creation just yet. He stands to legally inherit it.

27. However, Jesus was in the Old testament just as much an all-powerful God as YHWH1 is and was. He was not a soldier following orders or a slave or a created being. He was the united Elohim.

28. Jesus gave up his Godhood as the powerful YHWH the God of Israel to become part of creation and learn obedience as he was sovereign.

29. This is when he started the beginning part of the plan to fulfill the prophecy to become God’s firstborn, the blessing given to David. This is the first time he becomes the begotten son.

30. David was not eternal but the blessings were eternal. David died. There needed to be an eternal heir as well as restoring of mankind.

31. YHWH2 became part of David’s line to fulfill the prophecy, save Israel and inherit the kingdom and ALL of the blessings given to David.

32. All rights, are subject to property. No property no rights. Jesus becomes a piece of property himself as a human. His life is sustained by the father. This makes him just as much a slave as you and I, except he is now made up of YHWH1’s DNA. He is totally dependent on YHWH1.

33. Because of his new DNA make up, this makes him not an ordinary human, but a relative of the FATHER by actual genetics and now the father has a legal heir as David was a temporary heir and at death lost everything.

34. Jesus was the God of Israel, but the Pharisees could not see that. The God that was seen. (no man has ever seen the father.)

35. Jesus was crucified and dead. He had to brought back into the world. And he was BORN AGAIN by being resurrected. He was raised in the flesh full of blood.
36. He went into heaven into the holy of holy’s and emptied is blood onto the alter cleansing it.

37. He was cloaked in spirit and changed into a life giving spirit. He was restored as a SON a new creation. At his resurrection is the ONLY Time Jesus becomes the FIRSTBORN.

38. And he is given the name above ALL NAMES. That name is YHWH. He is given his old name back. (Watchtower erroneously inserts OTHER into the text, given the name above all other names. As if the commoner’s name Jesus is now the name above all other names. All I can say is wow!)

39. So the name you call on is YHWH, that is who Jesus is today. When Jesus prayed he didn’t have to call on himself. So he prayed “our Father.”

40. But you are told to no one gets to the father but through me (Jesus). You are told to call on the name OF Jesus, not the name Jesus. OF is implying a possession he had. What was the name Jesus came in? What was the name he was given? What name did he inherit? The name above all names…He was given back his old name YHWH…What’s the name above all names but technically not above the father’s? Naturally the same name. It’s above all cause it’s the same name. The both have the name above all names.

41. This is why all of the scripture quotes Joel, that there is only one name under the heavens that saves, calling on the name YHWH. Jesus was the God in Joel. Jesus was always and is YHWH the God who saves.

42. Lord means master. We have One God the Father, and one Master Yhwh Yahushua.

So what now? Put it to the test. You will see it’s the truth. The more you challenge it the more you will confirm and clarify it. Do your own research. God won’t strike you down for questioning the doctrines of men. Here is a good place to start. https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/home
I am not affiliated with this website. But it is an eye opener.

Also see Dr. Heiser The Jewish trinity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz8J4DTIkEg
(There is no such thing as a Jewish trinty, his video does open the eyes that there are two YHWHs. You have God as one entity. You have Jesus as a separate entity. Then you have the holy spirit, which is simply Jesus with God acting in a unity and the bible refers to them as a singular HE. Notice that the Lamb and God are both referred to as a HE in REVELATION

Revelation 22:3-5 King James Version (KJV)

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb (plural) shall be in it; and his (singular) servants shall serve him:

4 And they shall see his (singular)face; and his (singular) name shall be in their foreheads.

5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ (plural), and will reign with Him (singular)for a thousand years.

God and Christ united are considered singular...a HIM....that is the holy spirit. Once Jesus becomes an omnipresent spirit he can be everywhere and he has God dwelling in him. Together they are the Holy Spirit. (not to be confused with God's power. God used his power which is also called his holy spirit. I'm simply referring to the pronouns him or he that personifies the holy spirit. Any time you see the holy spirit personified it is the unity of God and Christ in Omnipresent form.

Lesson: Every Christian religion has a piece of the truth, and they are all also teaching lies as well and mostly traditional nonsense. Examine each component and you will see what stands up to scrutiny and what doesn’t. it is written "Let the prophets speak.." It's okay to hear what churches teach. But it's not okay to follow blindly.

It means you are now a spiritual adult and you can help and guide others. You don’t become self-righteous because you know this knowledge and others don’t. It makes you privileged. So what do you do? Hold on to what’s good and dump the bad and continue to grow in grace and knowledge and call on YHWH Yahushua the son to open the door, and pray "our Father". And your life will change.

PROCEED TO ROTHERHAM'S SUMMARY

by **Rotherham** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:46 am

LINKS TO BOTH SUMMARIES:

LINK TO ROTHERHAM'S SUMMARY:

LINK TO TRUTHSEEKER'S SUMMARY:

TrueTheology.net

Who is online