The Son in two persons (page 27)

Deputy Dog

JD

"The Son in two persons" Is my name for the very confusing WT doctrine.

It seems that the Wt article that DD posted says that Jesus was Human, before that he was a spirit being whos life force was transferred into Mary an dthen after his death he became a spirt being again, yes?

REPLY: That's the way I read it. First an angel, then a man, then a super-angel - heretic modalism - which the church condemned centuries ago. Transferring his life force doesn't make him 2 persons. It is basic jw doctrine that Jesus was a man, nothing less and nothing more. One person, not two. I'm not a fan of the JWs, far from it, but if the man is the first person, identify the second, or more specifically, point to where they actually teach that.

The JW Jesus is not two persons any more than the trinitarian hypostic Christ is two persons, at least that is what Christianity teaches. Take it up with the Pope and Billy Graham if anyone disagrees. Jesus was one person, one divine person who assumed a human nature just as the quotes above indicate. Now if you are saying the "transferred life force" is the equivalent of the God of the God-man, and that it is the spirit of Michael the Angel so that Jesus was an angel-man instead of a God-man, your left with the problem that the JWs teach that Jesus was nothing more or less than a man. Tough to get around that one, but the beauty of that is that it completely and utterly destroys their theories because they must reconcile all of the evidence that Jesus was, and is, God. And they can't do that to save their lives. Their burden of proof is insurmountable.

Not that I agree with the JWs. They are wrong about everything and give me the shivers, but I would suggest something stronger than a transferred life force, preferably a concession on their part in writing that Jesus was in fact "2 persons" though I doubt you will find it. I think DD is trying to force the second person onto their theories.

If you really want to beat these people, don't reinvent the wheel. Trinitarians whipped them centuries ago. They have a very strong case. It starts with the fact that Jesus was, and is, God. Nail that down and the rest falls into place because Jesus could not have been a created angel, and much more.

JD II

VoidEater

Slightly off-topic: I always (and I do mean from the moment I heard this in the KH as a tyke) had to interpret Michael coming down and becoming Jesus as an explicit validation of the traditional definition of a "soul".

Deputy Dog

JD

If you really want to beat these people, don't reinvent the wheel. Trinitarians whipped them centuries ago. They have a very strong case. It starts with the fact that Jesus was, and is, God. Nail that down and the rest falls into place because Jesus could not have been a created angel, and much more.

You're missing the point. I agree with you about the trinity. If you want to beat them in a trinity debate start a trinity thread and have at it. I may try to help you.

This thread is not about beating them in a debate about the trinity but showing how confusing their teaching is.

Deputy Dog

VoidEater

Slightly off-topic: I always (and I do mean from the moment I heard this in the KH as a tyke) had to interpret Michael coming down and becoming Jesus as an explicit validation of the traditional definition of a "soul".

They did that with what they call the "life force"

You're right that will make another good thread.

jonathan dough

JD

If you really want to beat these people, don't reinvent the wheel. Trinitarians whipped them centuries ago. They have a very strong case. It starts with the fact that Jesus was, and is, God. Nail that down and the rest falls into place because Jesus could not have been a created angel, and much more.

You're missing the point. I agree with you about the trinity. If you want to beat them in a trinity debate start a trinity thread and have at it. I may try to help you.

This thread is not about beating them in a debate about the trinity but showing how confusing their teaching is.

REPLY: But as I said, your topic is exaclty about economic Trinity even if you might not recognize it. And the best way to show how confusing their teachings is, and false, is to present them with the truth, which is the the Trinity doctrine. And even if that is not our way of going about it, that's mine, and this is still a free country. Whatever. Where is Reniaa when we need her?