Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible

Mondo1

Let us see. You stated: (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:
You go on to quote the paragraph, and yet nowhere in the paragraph does it say any of the claims you made. Let us review your claims:
"arguing that this death invalidates him as one who is "the first and the last (also)"
Is this argued for in the text? Nope. So strawman.
To claim that he is here speaking on behalf of God, is a ridiulous attempt at saving a non-trinitarian doctrine.
Is this argued for in the text? Nope. So strawman.
You stated: Point proven. If you don`t understand what this paragraph actually says, then that is your problem, not mine.
Reply: I am simply reading it and the text is entirely absent of what you claim it says. See the two points you argued above and then please show me in the paragraphs quoted where those arguments are made.
You state: 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.
The text says what it says. It is not complicated. God is the first and the last in all things, from eternity. Jesus Christ is the first and the last in the resurrection. Hence, when Jesus claims to be "the first and the last" he doesn't leave it at that alone, but as the one who "became dead and is alive forevermore." You seem to not be obfuscating.
Mondo
Deputy Dog

Mondo
OK you win, You get to worship someone or something other than the true God. Go right ahead! So other than this Jesus of yours, do you have any other gods (idols) that you worship or bow the knee to? If you have one idol you may as well go for a dozen or so. In for a penny in for a pound!
Mondo1

DD,
I have one true God, the Father. (Joh. 17:3) Jesus is only to receive worship because 1) God put him in a position to receive such (Phil. 2:8-11) and more specifically, because God actually commands it! (Heb. 1:6) If God commands the worship of someone, I do it. I do whatever he tells me.
In light of that, I recognize that others are properly called gods (Psa. 8:5; 82:6; 136:2), but none of these have been placed in a position worthy of worship and so God does not command it for any of these. So I do not worship them.
Quite simply, I accept what the Bible says on these matters and reject what it does not, always being careful to keep passages in context to make sure that I am properly understanding the intended meaning and that I am not creating an artificial meaning, which would be to make the text mean something out of context that it does not when in context.
Mondo
plmkrzy

Toss out everything except:
"I have the keys"
Hellrider

Mondo:
You go on to quote the paragraph, and yet nowhere in the paragraph does it say any of the claims you made. Let us review your claims:
"arguing that this death invalidates him as one who is "the first and the last (also)"
Is this argued for in the text? Nope. So strawman.
Let us look at the text one more time, to see what it says:
"With the Father identified as the Alpha and the Omega, we must inquire of this title's meaning. Barnes well observes the parallel between this title and “the First and the Last,” a title given to God within the book of Isaiah (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12). He well explains the meaning as follows: “ The sense is, that God existed before all things, and will exist forever.” [2] We accept this meaning fully and believe it to properly articulate the thought of the text."
Ok...so, the text insists that this titlebelongs to God only, and bases this on his eternal existence! As in, neverending, never-beginning, never-interrupted existence! The text then goes onto say:
"Revelation 1:17 With God established as “the Alpha and the Omega” in verse 8, we have noted that this title parallels the use of “the First and the Last” for God in Isaiah. On this ground many have then pointed to Revelation 1:17 in an effort to prove that Christ is God. In effect, they argue that “the First and the Last” points to God’s eternity, with him being the first being to exist, the one before all others. As the last, he will forever exist into the future. Nothing will ever come after him for he will never cease to be. If Jesus is called this, he too must have lived eternally into the past and therefore can be none other than God. Yet is this the case?
To properly consider the argument we need to examine the context of the text in question. The following is the text, again from the ASV.
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? "
Yes, why is this significant? It is significant, in the mind of the writer of the web-page, as he is using the mortality of Jesus (his death) to exclude him from being able to fulfill the meaning of the expression "The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last", as this expression is defined in the beginning of the text! Hence, my point still stands, and is not a "strawman". (By the way, I don`t think you understand the meaning of the that term) The fact that Jesus` previous mortality (his death as a man, then ressurected) is important for the author of the text to exclude Jesus from being "the First and the Last" in the same sense as God the Father, is made clear as the text continues:
" 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" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clearly, according to the writer, the fact that Jesus was a mortal man, died and was ressurected, excludes him from fulfilling the meaning of the term "The First and the Last", in the same sense as God (the Father).
So, where do we stand now? In a prvious post, you claimed:

Reply: I discussed the background of the text and also the indicators of a change in speaker already
So, you are saying that there is a change in speaker! Is that correct? Because I asked you whether Jesus here was speaking on behalf of God the Father, which you denied. I asked you whether it is Jesus speaking here, and if he is using the expression "the first and the last" about himself, but that it "means something else than when the Father says it". So, which is it? From your previous post, it seems clear that you believe that there is a shift in speaker. So, I`ll repeat the question from my above post:
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".
Is this what you are saying? Yes or no?
(because IF this is what you are saying, then you have seriously misunderstood the link that you gave to me)
Mondo1

hellrider,
Clearly you have misunderstood the argument being made. You state:
Yes, why is this significant? It is significant, in the mind of the writer of the web-page, as he is using the mortality of Jesus (his death) to exclude him from being able to fulfill the meaning of the expression "The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last", as this expression is defined in the beginning of the text! Hence, my point still stands, and is not a "strawman". (By the way, I don`t think you understand the meaning of the that term) The fact that Jesus` previous mortality (his death as a man, then ressurected) is important for the author of the text to exclude Jesus from being "the First and the Last" in the same sense as God the Father, is made clear as the text continues:
The author does not use his mortality to exclude him. At no time does the author say any such thing. What the author says is that he is the first and the last in reference to him being resurrected, so that he as the first and the last in that context. The author is stating that he is the first and the last as the one who became dead and is alive forevermore, not in any other way. This is the argument, not the one you have falsely built up. So it is a strawman, because the argument you are attempting to refute is not one that is made.
Clearly, according to the writer, the fact that Jesus was a mortal man, died and was ressurected, excludes him from fulfilling the meaning of the term "The First and the Last", in the same sense as God (the Father).
Yet the writer never says this! Why do you think that is? If this is what the writer meant, would not the writer have said exactly what you are stating? Yet he does not!
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".
No, this is not what I or the author is saying, contrary to the strawman you built earlier. Revelation 1:8 and 22:12-13 presents the Father speaking, while Revelation 1:17-18 and 2:8 presents Jesus speaking.
Mondo
Hellrider

Mondo:
Clearly, according to the writer, the fact that Jesus was a mortal man, died and was ressurected, excludes him from fulfilling the meaning of the term "The First and the Last", in the same sense as God (the Father).
Yet the writer never says this! Why do you think that is? If this is what the writer meant, would not the writer have said exactly what you are stating? Yet he does not!
LoL, of course he doesn`t. It`s what he means, but he tries to hide it behind references to Jesus as a ressurected being! It`s very typical jw-style when trying to twist a scripture into meaning something that it doesn`t. But if you believe it means something other than what I think, why don`t you clarify it for me? Exactly what is it in the term "The first and the last" when used about Jesus Christ, that differs from the meaning of the same expression, when used about the Father? And while you`re at it: If the writer of Revelation didn`t intend to make it look like Jesus was claiming some sort of equality with the Father, when why did he put those words in the mouth of Jesus?
No, this is not what I or the author is saying, contrary to the strawman you built earlier. Revelation 1:8 and 22:12-13 presents the Father speaking, while Revelation 1:17-18 and 2:8 presents Jesus speaking.
Good, then we are clear on that (and I agree about Rev 22 btw). Then you shouldn`t have confused everything by insisting on a "change in speaker" in your previous post, it would have spared us both a lot of trouble.
The author does not use his mortality to exclude him. At no time does the author say any such thing
Very often, what a writer means, and intends to say, is often clear by what he doesn`t say, more than what he actually does say. So, ok, exactly what is it that makes the expression differ, when used about Jesus and the Father? You will claim that it is the ressurection, right? But why is this so important? I`ll tell you why: It is because a ressurection necessarily involves a preceding death! And a death means a halt to existence! This is what the author of this jw-text means, whether you like it or now, or whether you will admit it or not. And in the mind of the writer, this death excludes Jesus Christ from fulfilling the meaning of the term "the first and the last"; in the same sense as when used about the Father, because when used about the Father, the term implies eternal, never-beginning, never-ending existence. Like it or not. And this goes directly against the intention of the author of Rev.
Mondo1

Hellrider,
Bad news for you. I know the writer extremely well and I asked if that is what he meant. Guess what he said. Nope! Sorry pal, but you have built an absolute strawman.
For the meaning of it when applied to Jesus, see the article.
Mondo
Hellrider

Mondo:
Bad news for you. I know the writer extremely well and I asked if that is what he meant. Guess what he said. Nope! Sorry pal, but you have built an absolute strawman.
LoL, that is a weak counterargument. You know him "extremely well" as in...yourself? Are you the author of the site? If not, you should be aware of the fact that he himself (being the author) might not even realise it himself, that this is what the text implies. And by the way, anyone can use the "I know the author and I asked him and he didn`t mean to say what you thought he said"-argument to argue against a point raised. And you still haven`t understood the meaning of the term "strawman".
For the meaning of it when applied to Jesus, see the article.
You just love running around in circles, don`t you. That way you don`t have to answer the points and arguments raised. Well, then it is pretty meaningless to have a discussion with you (well, the others here seem to have figured that out allready).
Mondo1

hellrider,
Your argument is an absolute strawman. If you don't believe what I am saying, email them yourself and I'm sure he will reply. The text does not state or do anything to imply the argument you are making, but it actually lays out a very specific argument, which you have not even attempted to address. It does not suprise me that you did lay out a strawman at this point either, because the points that are made you have clearly not been able to answer. You have not done anything with the view presented on the speaker change in 22:16, you have not touched anything further on 22:12 in relation to Isaiah 40:10 since I responded to your one remark and you have not done anything with the actual argument made on 1:17. You have built a strawman and knocked it down. Be sure to give yourself a pat on the back.
Mondo

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

Share this