Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible

Mondo1

ellderwho,
You are beginning to clearly demonstration that you have no support for your position.
You state: My apologies, Ive overlooked this post. So really you have no basis other than your own imagination of Christs' own glory.
Reply: Is this really the best you have? You know full well that the Bible does not specifically define for us how this takes place. Now you're trying to play games instead of dealing with the issues. You are 100% transparent.
You state: 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: If your argument is that it comes from Jehovah because Jehovah creates everything, as the angels have their own glory too (Luke 9:26), they must also be God per your argument. Quite simply, Jehovah is *never* said to "share" his glory with Jesus.
You state: So your the one to explain what Jehovah really means when he says " I will share my glory with no one"
Reply: Do tell, where did you get that quote from? Not from the Bible! You made it up! It does not say "share", the says: "I will not give my glory to another." It means, the glory that belongs to him alone (hence "my glory") will not be given to one other than him. This does not mean that glory cannot be given to others, but it says that the glory that belongs to him will not be given to another. See the difference?
Reply: 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.
Reply: Do you not know basic English? Yes, seem. You make it "seem" to say something that it doesn't, but quoting it out of context. I can do that too. Wanna see? The Bible prohibits art. We cannot have statues of any type. Exodus 20:4 makes this clear.
Exodus 20:4 You shall not make a graven image for yourself, or any likeness in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth;
Nothing. Any stature, including those that were even in the temple, is a violation of the law. Thus Solomon, in building the temple broke the law. Right? WRONG. I just took the verse out of context and made it *seem* to mean something that was never intended. In context, Exodus 20:4 has nothing to do with art, but has to do with idols. The graven images within the temple itself were not a violation of this, because in context the text had nothing to do with this type of art.
You state: 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. Reply: The issue is the *context*. See, the context is identical to Exodus 20:4, and we just saw what happens when I take that verse out of context. I made it *seem* to have a meaning that it did not. The same thing happens here in Isaiah when you take it out of context. In context, we are dealing with the idols of the nations. For example, in Isaiah 45, look at verses 9 and 16. Or drop back to Isaiah 44 and read verses 9-20. The context is extremely clear. You cannot remove it from this context.
Mondo
Mondo1

hellrider,
You state: Other than your overall Bible-doctrines/view? Let me see it then.
Reply: I discussed the background of the text and also the indicators of a change in speaker already. Instead of retying it all or searching for it to repost it, you can either jump back and take a look for yourself, or consider this link.
You state: 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!
Reply: All Christians will be raised in the last day, so by that argument Christians must be "God" too because of "extreme supernatural...ness." One really has to assume Trinitarianism to come to such a conclusion, for only a few verses prior in 20:17 does Jesus make it clear that he has his own God, while the Apostle John concludes by explaining that these things are recorded not so we might believe that Jesus is God, but the Son of God (of course to a Trinitarian he is both, but the point is that John did not claim that these things were recorded for us to believe the former view).
You state: ...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.
Reply: More likely, I understand the Trinitarian view *too well* because I know what they claim, but I know what they claim is not what they really mean. A Trinitarian claims that calling Jesus God is not false, but in fact they do not believe that he is God, because in fact they believe that God is the Triune God and Jesus is not the Triune God. They must say this is acceptable, because their theology falls apart if they do not say as much, but that doesn't make it what they really mean.
As for Thomas, here you have a man standing before him. A resurrected man, but a man nonetheless. Somehow he is going to be viewing this one as the Almighty God? Nothing.. I repeat, nothing in the text gives anything to indicate that. In fact, it is not theology that so much would dictate a view contrary to the Trinitarian view, it is theology that would derive the Trinitarian view. I must assume that you do not have a full understanding of the meaning and application of the Greek word for god (QEOS).
Mondo
ellderwho

You know full well that the Bible does not specifically define for us how this takes place.
Your back peddling because you got caught. Remember you said:
For how Jesus gets his own glory, it is in a way similar to how the angels do I would imagine,
"In a way similar" eh, boy thats real original. And you would imagine?
And you have the nerve to ask me, "is this the best Ive got". And call me 100% transparent. You keep on imagining things it will work out, I guess.
Like I said, you know Christ has glory on the throne but just cant figure out how he got it. Or maybe I figured it out for you "you imagined it"
These are your words not mine.
Mondo1

ellderwho,
You do love to play games, don't you. I did not backpeddle at all. I simply said that the Bible does not provide a specific definition, but that we can look a get a general idea. My two posts were complimentory, not contradictory. Luke 9:26 really shoots down your entire position, and as all can see, you are unable to deal with that text.
Mondo
Ade

I have found that there are for and against trinitarian views in the scriptures. I wont list them all as im sure they have been thoroughly researched.What i will say is that now in my view, it really doesnt matter because if we follow Jesus, Have faith in Jesus, accept there is a Father whom we pray to, as Jesus said.We are not breaking any commands, disrespecting either of them or commiting any other Grievious sin.

I feel therefore it is something none of us can fully understand, and the time spent arguing about it can be more productively spent elsewhere.

GOD bless you all
Ade
LittleToe

Yawn.
How about an attempt is made to return to the original premise of the thread, ergo the Divinity of CHrist, rather than spiral into antagonism over the Trinity?
Hellrider

Mondo: Ok, now I`ve read thru that link, and OMG, that is the biggest pile of amateurish crap I have ever come across. I especially like this part, and the pathetic attempt at trying to explain away Christs deity (as "the first and the last") by forcing a speaker-change into the text:
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, 18 and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
In this text we find that Jesus is identified as “the First and the Last,” yet he is also identified as “the Living one… [who] was dead and… alive for evermore.” We must also note that in chapter two Jesus is again identified with this title. (Rev. 2:8) Yet, this occurs with reference to himself as the one who “was dead and lived.” Why is this significant?
We notice that Jesus does not simply reference himself as the one that lives, but specifically as the one that “was dead,” which is more accurately translated as “became dead.” That he became dead and now lives, and specifically that he lives “for evermore” (Rev. 1:18) points to his resurrection. Whereas God is simply “the First and the Last” without qualification, Jesus is “the First and the Last” as the one who “became dead and is alive for evermore.” What then does this mean?
...and this:
Revelation 22:12-13 A disputed text presents itself in Revelation 22, where some will argue that the text speaks of Christ, while others that it speaks of God. The text speaks of “the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” These are all parallel expressions denoting the same thing. While the text is not qualified to show itself speaking of Christ as in Revelation 1:17-18 and 2:8, it would not necessarily need to be in light of the qualification having already been established in those two texts.
...the text tries to invalidate Jesus direct words, his direct claim to be (also) "the first and the last" by referring to his death, arguing that this death invalidates him as one who is "the first and the last (also)" (because he would then, at one point "not be" at all). This is ridiculous. Seriously, it is pathetic. First of all, at no time did Jesus stop existing. He went to Hades to preach to the incarcarated angels, prior to his ressurection. This after-death-state (living, but dead) is typical of both jewish and early christian beliefs (later on, as we come to Revelation, the soul-doctrine becomes much clearer). Second, the three days of death doesn`t even matter, not in the mind of the writer of the text! It is Jesus, the son of man himself, who places his hand on John, claiming, in his own words, and making a statement about himself (!!!) that he is "the first and the last". To claim that he is here speaking on behalf of God, is a ridiulous attempt at saving a non-trinitarian doctrine.
Also:
In examining this for Revelation 22:12-13 we find a reference to Isaiah 40:10 that proves to be extremely enlightening. Looking to this text we find a clear parallel to Revelation 22:12, which we find fulfilled in Revelation 22.
LoL. No, it is not "extremely enlighting". The NT is full of referneces and parallels to the OT, in which things (for lack of a better word) attributed to Yahweh in the NT is attributed to Jesus Christ. This is the point! It is these things that led to the development of the trinity-doctrine in the first place.
What kind of website is that, anyway? Is it jw? The doctrines and views sound so familiar, but it was written better than most WT-stuff. Is it one of those jw-dissident-groups?
plmkrzy

The three musketeers are one being.
Mondo1

Hellrider,
Touchy touchy. Use of words such as "amateurish" and "pathetic" show that the material has made you very uncomfortable.
----------------------------------
...the text tries to invalidate Jesus direct words, his direct claim to be (also) "the first and the last" by referring to his death, arguing that this death invalidates him as one who is "the first and the last (also)" (because he would then, at one point "not be" at all). This is ridiculous. Seriously, it is pathetic.
-----------------------------
Strawman. The text does not at all argue for what you claim. It argues that Jesus, in identifying himself as the first and the last, does not do so openly, but he is "the first and the last, who became dead and is alive forevermore." It is apparently that exegetically, you don't have a response, because the statements made in the article are true. The article does nothing to "invalidate" Jesus' words, it only recognizes the fact that Jesus makes the claim not openly, as with God, but in a specific way.
------------------------------
First of all, at no time did Jesus stop existing. He went to Hades to preach to the incarcarated angels, prior to his ressurection.
--------------------------
This is an absolute red herring, for the text's arguments have nothing to do with this. This is a completely different subject all together, which in another thread I'd be happy to address, but I don't want to take us off topic.
---------------------------
This after-death-state (living, but dead) is typical of both jewish and early christian beliefs (later on, as we come to Revelation, the soul-doctrine becomes much clearer).
---------------------
The red herring continues....
-----------------
Second, the three days of death doesn`t even matter, not in the mind of the writer of the text! It is Jesus, the son of man himself, who places his hand on John, claiming, in his own words, and making a statement about himself (!!!) that he is "the first and the last". To claim that he is here speaking on behalf of God, is a ridiulous attempt at saving a non-trinitarian doctrine.
-------------------------
Now we get a strawman. The text does not argue that Jesus is "speaking on behalf of God."
-------------------------
LoL. No, it is not "extremely enlighting". The NT is full of referneces and parallels to the OT, in which things (for lack of a better word) attributed to Yahweh in the NT is attributed to Jesus Christ. This is the point! It is these things that led to the development of the trinity-doctrine in the first place.
-----------------------
You apparently missed *why* it is extremely enlightening. Because within that text we see the arm of Jehovah (which is seen in the Messiah - Isa. 53:1) rules for him, while Jehovah himself (thus the Father, as the Messiah is seen next to him) is coming. It demonstrates that the Father is coming also in the end times. As Rev. 22:12 alludes to Isaiah 40:10, a reference to the Father, and a speaker change is indicated in Revelation 22:16 (a point that you did not address from the article), it is naturally a reference to the Father speaking in 22:12-13.
Mondo
Hellrider

Mondo:
Touchy touchy. Use of words such as "amateurish" and "pathetic" show that the material has made you very uncomfortable.
I am sorry you got that impression. I truly felt that that text was amateurish and pathetic (in the sense "absolutely not impressed"), but perhaps I should not have worded it so strongly.
----------------------------------
...the text tries to invalidate Jesus direct words, his direct claim to be (also) "the first and the last" by referring to his death, arguing that this death invalidates him as one who is "the first and the last (also)" (because he would then, at one point "not be" at all). This is ridiculous. Seriously, it is pathetic.
-----------------------------
Strawman. The text does not at all argue for what you claim. It argues that Jesus, in identifying himself as the first and the last, does not do so openly, but he is "the first and the last, who became dead and is alive forevermore." It is apparently that exegetically, you don't have a response, because the statements made in the article are true. The article does nothing to "invalidate" Jesus' words, it only recognizes the fact that Jesus makes the claim not openly, as with God, but in a specific way.
(First of all, the argument would only have been a strawman if I was a) wrong...and b) knew that I was wrong. Unfortunately for you, I am neither, hence, this is not a "strawman"). Anyway, let`s see what the text says then:
We notice that Jesus does not simply reference himself as the one that lives, but specifically as the one that “was dead,” which is more accurately translated as “became dead.” That he became dead and now lives, and specifically that he lives “for evermore” (Rev. 1:18) points to his resurrection. Whereas God is simply “the First and the Last” without qualification, Jesus is “the First and the Last” as the one who “became dead and is alive for evermore.” What then does this mean?
As we noted for God, the title implied God’s eternal existence, for as the first he was before anything else, and as the last his existence is unending, If all were to cease existing he would remain. Jesus, on the other hand, was the first to receive the resurrection to immortality. (c.f 1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5) As such, he is the first to experience this and in his immortality (1 Cor. 15:53) he is forever existing and hence he is appropriately identified as the last. [3]
Point proven. If you don`t understand what this paragraph actually says, then that is your problem, not mine.
The text does not argue that Jesus is "speaking on behalf of God."
Are you then saying that Jesus, the son of Man transforms himself from the second he walks down from the throne and comes towards John, placing his hands on him, and ( then transforms to God) then says: "Fear not; I am the first and the last", and (then transforms back to Jesus, the son of Man) then says: "and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades". Then you have a big problem. The other possibility is that you are claiming that Jesus has the right to also use this title about himself (the first and the last),and that it actually is Him speaking, but that when he uses the espression, it then "means someting else" (the link you gave me is unclear: Is the author in the link arguing that there is a shift in speaker, or that it is Jesus speaking, but that when he uses the expression, it means something else. I hate this kind of thing, when the argument is unclear, and the author tries to hide the unclarity behind a smokescreen, all smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately, this is a common tactic for jws). I see that the link insists on this expression having "two meanings", one referring to God (Yahweh) as "The first and the last" (period.), while the other is "the first and the last, the living one, the one who was dead...etc", and that when Jesus is using it, it isn`t emphasising his deity. If you believe that to be a correct interpretation, I suggest you go talk to a real theologian.

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

Share this