I can't beleive there is still many after leaving the bOrg still enjoying arguing about same old thing.
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
ellderwho
for you are unable to come back with any type of reply other than to deny I addressed your point.
Again Mondo1, I very simply highlight a claim that Jehovah makes. Kinda like thus saith the LORD. You say I take it out of context. I show verses the clearly denote glory and the origination of and a sharing of glory with his Son, which Jehovah clearly prohibits.
As you are unable to show where I did not address it,
What? I give you verses that show God gave his glory, what more do you need?
You wrote
Careful in your exegesis there my friend. It says nothing of him having "some of the Fathers glory."
Are you then denying the scriptures cited. What now?
-
ellderwho
Ellderwho,
----------------------
More fluff, your evading the idea of the verse, Its not something to be understood/grasped.Why would Jesus grasping for equality be hard to understand?
---------------------Dismissal is how you respond to refutation, eh? The text says he did NOT grasp for equality. It says OUC hARPAGMON, not just hARPAGMON.
Mondo
Geesh! This is borderline halarious. The verse actually says equality with God was not to be understood.
G2470 equal
??´s??
isos
ee'-sos
Probably from G1492 (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind): - + agree, as much, equal, like.
Phi 2:6
who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, ASVPhi 2:6
Who, 3739 being 5225 in 1722 the form 3444 of God, 2316 thought 2233 it not 3756 robbery 725 to be 1511 equal 2470 with God: 2316 kj+Phi 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: webstersPhi 2:6
who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, YLTThought it not robbery. Hmmmm.
-
Mondo1
DD,
You wrote: Well this looks a little problematic for you?
Reply: Did you not read verse 4? What do idols have to do with anything? If you want to rip verse 3 out of context, make sure to rip verse 4 out too and say we can't have art!
Mondo
-
Mondo1
ellderwho,
You write: Again Mondo1, I very simply highlight a claim that Jehovah makes. Kinda like thus saith the LORD. You say I take it out of context. I show verses the clearly denote glory and the origination of and a sharing of glory with his Son, which Jehovah clearly prohibits.
Reply: You are highlighting a claim, but in doing so you are ripping it out of context to make it *seem* to be saying something it does not. You have shown no "sharing" of glory, you have shown a possession of glory. Big difference. No thought of "share" is in any of the verses you quoted.
You write: What? I give you verses that show God gave his glory, what more do you need?
Reply: You did no such thing. The text does not say that God gave Jesus his glory, but that God gave Jesus glory. As John 17 showed, Jesus gave that same glory to his disciples. So by your argument the disciples must be God too! You have not addressed this point.
You write: Are you then denying the scriptures cited. What now?
Reply: I'm denying your eisegesis and gross abuse of Scripture by claiming for them to say something they don't say and citing them to prove something they don't prove.
Mondo
-
Mondo1
Ellderwho,
What part of OUC do you not understand? Shall I translate the verse for you?
OUC hARPAGMON hHGHSATO TO EINAI ISA QEW
"he did not consider to rape equality with God."
He did not grasp for equality with God. You want that word *not* to go away, and yet it is right there in the text.
Mondo
-
ellderwho
For how Jesus gets his own glory, it is in a way similar to how the angels do I would imagine,
My apologies, Ive overlooked this post. So really you have no basis other than your own imagination of Christs' own glory.
but on a much greater scale. Jesus is raised by God to a high position, so that all will recognize who he is and what he has done and in such a way he is glorified.
You seem to realize Christ has this glory but unsure of its particular origination, although you agree it comes from Jehovah you dont want it to be Jehovahs own glory. Even though Jehovah creates everything, or do you have a problem with that?
Reply: You are highlighting a claim, but in doing so you are ripping it out of context to make it *seem* to be saying something it does not. You have shown no "sharing" of glory, you have shown a possession of glory. Big difference. No thought of "share" is in any of the verses you quoted.
So your the one to explain what Jehovah really means when he says " I will share my glory with no one"
Further your saying, I am trying to make it *seem* its saying something its not. Seem? Oh I see, maybe Jehovah meant I wont share my glory in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, I'll spread it around alittle between Christ and the angels. But lets not reveal where you got it.
By your textual logic of Isaiah 45 we really have to ignore how the text reveals Gods attributes. Or maybe you have a problem with Jehovah stating he's the only true God. Or maybe a textual problem with 45:18 where Gods claims to have created the earth and all its inhabitants, maybe another textual issue with verse 23 that it doesnt really mean all the ends of the earth should look to "him" to be saved.
-
LittleToe
sinis:
No one wants to look at religion for what it is and was made for -> utter control of the masses.
Who told you that? It's rather a jaded view, don't you think? Do you honestly beleive that every religion was "made" for that purpose?
-
Hellrider
Mondo:
hellride,
If you keep reading, you'll see I gave good reason to understand a speaker change, for there is something quite clear in the text that does show it.
Other than your overall Bible-doctrines/view? Let me see it then.
For Thomas' words, there is nothing that would make one take it in the Trinitarian sense either
That`s correct. According to Thomas, the Jesus standing before him could very well be (the most high) God himself. It could also be "god" used just as a title (as in "you are gods", a title used to signify the grandiosness of a person, like "lord"), but that is unlikely, taken into consideration that he just realised the extreme supernatural...ness of Jesus, having risen from the dead!
Yet the Trinitarian view isn't really that Jesus is "God," for Trinitarians don't *really* even believe that. They believe that God is Triune and Jesus is actually a PERSON of God.
...I don`t think you really understand the trinitarian view. To a trinitarian, there is nothing wrong about saying that Jesus "is God". To a trinitarian, when saying that "Jesus Christ is God", the statement wouldn`t be false, it would just be incomplete. And that is something quite different. Of course, the trinitarian view solves quite a lot of problems. In the non-trinitarian view (arian or jw), the person interpreting the Bible would have to interpret all the passages in which Jesus is called, or refers to himself in God-terms, as pasages in which the term "God" is used as just a title, in the same manner as a "lord" or "prophet". The problem is that there is nothing in the wording, nothing in the text that tells us when this approach is to be taken. So, what we are left with, is doctrine! - and overall Biblicall views. Without doctrine (!!!), there is nothing that would make you look at Thomas` words, and say "here the word God is used just as a title". And in my opinion, doctrine is something that should be derived from reading the texts, and not the other way around.
I`d like to see the reason for the speaker-change in Revelation now.
-
ellderwho
In the non-trinitarian view (arian or jw), the person interpreting the Bible would have to interpret all the passages in which Jesus is called, or refers to himself in God-terms, as pasages in which the term "God" is used as just a title, in the same manner as a "lord" or "prophet".
Hellrider,
You make a good point. Ive yet to see a valid explanation of the complex problem of having yet another [g]od. Besides the one true God.