Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"? (page 18)

Mondo1

Well my idea of different types of spirits is not really speculation, but based upon the fact that "God is a spirit" and yet the angels are spirits. I don't think anyone would argue that they are of the same order of spirits. With humans, we know from Peter that in the resurrection they became "partakes of the divine nature" and so they will certainly be like Christ, for they will be his brothers. Likely, their bodies will be changed to be made of the same "stuff" as God himself... which I would say is what has occured with Jesus. (Heb. 1:3)

LittleToe

Thanks for that. It sounds a logical enough position. Even the WTS agrees that some will be raised to "eternal" life, though they don't discuss it much, prefering to leave it fuzzy.

From a Trinitarian perspective there are difficulties with this notion, in that no-one wants to dare to suggest that mankind could be resurrected into a form of "god-stuff" (nice phrase, btw). The main issue being that The Trinity doctrine as it currently stands uses "substance" as the basis for equality.

Personally I see this "substance" as having the attribute of existing in "eternity", leading to omnipresence. Just my 2p

Deputy Dog

Mondo

The issue is that they assumed something. Never assume.

OK! Lets remove all doubt! Are you or are you not currently a JW? If you are, do you believe all of what the WT teaches? Are they God's official organization?

ellderwho

DDog,

Here we have a "pseudo witness" which is certainly encouraging. However, salvation is in the balance for such a witness.

Lets look at this statement re: Christ prehuman existence :

mondo1: He was the same person because he was still himself, his form just changed.

One still has to deal with the dual natures. First, the Bible does not clarify this whatsoever. To assume Christs' nature is "seperated" is pure speculation.

mondo1: I could only speculate and I prefer not to do that.

One really has to ask themselves, why could the fallen angels prior to flood be able to do something Christ cannot?

A second though,t what is so terribly wrong with Christ having a dual nature?

Mondo1

The problem with the dual nature hypothesis is that it is contradictory to say that one person is 100% two things. One could be part one thing and part another, but not 100% of two completely different things.

Mondo1

Leolaia,

For this next portion of my response, I'm merely going to quote from the source you mentioned, Fekkes, on the use of the title "the first and the last" for Jesus Christ. I believe the reference sufficiently responds on the issue, and though I am not 100% in agreement with all of the points made, my simple point is to show the validity of not taking the title in the sense used for God within Isaiah, but with a connection to his resurrection.

First on Revelation 1:17-18:
"In what way, then, is Christ here the First and the Last? What is the basis for his authority? Among commentators, two views appear most prominent. One group understands the designation as an expression of Christ's eternity, which underlies his authority as the Lord of all history. The other group connects the title with the event of Christ's resurrection and subsequent enthronement, which authenticated his past existence, confirmed his divine authority, and established him as God's agent of salvation and judgment."

"The first view is based on the assumption that all three double titles, whether applies to God or Christ, have exactly the same force. Yet this overlooks the fact that first and last is reserved for Christ alone. Not only is it associated with the resurrection explicitly in two of its three uses (1.17-18; 2.8), but John relates Christ's 'firstness' specifically to the resurrection when it 1.5 he calls him the 'firstborn from the dead'. In addition, he repeatedly gives evidence that Christ's victory over death is the basis of his authority over the church and the world. It appears then the second view best accords with the immediate context and John's overall perspective."

On Revelation 2:8-
"It is surely significant that John here does not merely take over the first and last designation from 1.17, but retains its connection with the resurrection."

Deputy Dog

ew

To assume Christs' nature is "seperated" is pure speculation.

He doesn't practice what he preaches does he?

LT

If he weren't so evasive we would not have to assume.

Mondo

I don't mind being corrected, but a little explanation would be nice. And please, when you are correcting WT teaching direct your correction at them.

Your question was based upon a false premise, so I corrected you, making it rather pointless to answer the question.

It wouldn't have that hard to clear that up for us, you could have told us up front that you disagree with the WT on this point.

The problem with the dual nature hypothesis is that it is contradictory to say that one person is 100% two things. One could be part one thing and part another, but not 100% of two completely different things.

OK then. what would you say the percentages% are?

Mondo1

I don't have a %. What we are told from Scripture is that he "became flesh" and that he "emptied himself" so that he was no longer what he was, but he was something else. The WHO remained the same, the WHAT changed.

Satanus

Mondo

I don't have a %.

Do you believe jesus' percentage of spirit (that he brought w him from his spirit form) as a human was greater than 0%? A simple yes or no answer, please.

S

ellderwho

The problem with the dual nature hypothesis is that it is contradictory to say that one person is 100% two things. One could be part one thing and part another, but not 100% of two completely different things.

DDog, What he's really saying is, he has no proof of his assertions/speculations/assumtions. But he would prefer we just take his word on this one. What he also ignores is that fact that the fallen angels/herd of swine, etc... totally distroys his premise of percentages of a being sharing parts. Which you see he failed to address, perhaps another faulty question. Still the burning question remains: what came down from heaven?

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

Share this