The Son in two persons (page 29)

reniaa

hi nark

I absolutely disgree

I find it ironic you use fiction story of the frog prince to justify your fictional hypostatic union I guess we could say fiction to justify fiction.

The trinitarians on this forum alone, justify their 100% man 100% God saying Jesus could speak separately under each heading a bit like someone with multiple personalities which is pure rubbish biblically but it's how they justify Jesus always saying God is distinctly separate to himself.

hi jondough

I already challenged 1 john 5:20 which is talking on Jesus's father again being the "one true God" but trinitarian apologists try and twist the grammer to make it seem different but john 17:3 is clear and cannot be twisted so trinitarians ignore it's obvious truth.

Hi leolaia

Yes witnesses do not believe in a raised fleshly Jesus only a spiritual one, but trinity conflicts with this too because when the bible talks of the dead being resurrected after 1000 of years how will they get new bodies which have rotted away and become just dust again?

A trinitarian will say there souls don't need bodies and they BECOME spirits in heaven so technically this make Jesus the only flesh king in heaven?

Because to this date no one has answered my query of what happens to the flesh Jesus that is raised?

Reniaa

Narkissos

If you step back a little, the basic Christian storyline (in all of its historical versions afaik, JW certainly included) always rests on a "frog prince" narrative device. Even the modern liberal unitarian versions, which deny any kind of (divine or angelic) pre-existence to the man Jesus and do not portray him as "perfect" or "sinless" either, believe that "God" or some "ideal" revealed him/itself in that man, in spite of his "human" limitations -- i.e. under contrary appearances (sub specie contraria) to an extent. Chase the frog prince through the front door and he comes back through the window (until you kiss him?) :)

P.S.: both the orthodox "hypostatic union" and the WT talk of "life force and personality pattern transferred to the egg-cell of Mary" are "speculative" rationalisations of this basic narrative plot, the former in late Antiquity metaphysical language, the latter into 20th-century pseudo-scientific language. In the story itself the continuity is borne by the permanence of a name or a single pronoun: he (God the Son, the Son of God, the logos, or the archangel Michael) became, descended, came down, took the form of, died, resurrected, ascended, etc.

Deputy Dog

Nark

The WT didn't really come up with anything new, they just redefined terms like soul and spirit, and replaced them with "life force and personality pattern"

PSacramento

RE: the non-canoical books,

The fact that they are mentioned either means something or means nothing, you can't have it both ways.

The term archangel is from 1Enoch, for it appears there before it appeares anywhere in the NT and Michael is ONE of the Archangels, not only as per 1Enoch but Daniel( which IS canoical). Picking and choosing what we want from the "aprocryphia" (SP?) is just as bad as picking and choosing from canon, don't do it, it belittles any argument you may have.

According to the WT, what is THEIR definition of "life force", I always though it was soul ( that chessy electricti metaphor), but they say the spirt has no qualities of the person, that is the soul, but the soul isn't the life force...can someone clear that up?

If anyone mentions midichlorians I am gonna freak !

reniaa

hi psacrimento

Jesus himself did not confirm enoch and that says a lot.

sometimes this thread reminds me strongly of this scripture.

Colossians 2:8 (New International Version)

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Reniaa

PSacramento

Reniaa,

Not sure what you mean about Jesus not confirming Enoch, can you expand on that?

Narkissos

reniaa,

Do you mean unscriptural expressions and concepts like "life force," "personality pattern," "transfer," "perfect man," or just "nature" and "person"? Why not bring up "angel worship" (v. 18) while you're at it?

reniaa

hi psacramento

Enoch is a hebrew scripture apocrypha written well before Jesus and Jesus makes no mention of it. Which you think he would if he wanted to highlight it was in fact to be considered part of the bible like he did with daniel. He mentions daniel which had been contraversial so it got Jesus's stamp of approval.

That may have been some historical facts that survived the flood and the book of enoch is a typical human embellishment on them that developed. that why we can only accept what jude says as accurate and nothing else.

Reniaa

PSacramento

Reniaa,

I know what 1Enoch is, I have read it.

The fact that Jesus never mentioned it doesn't really matter, was it or its context ever brouth up to Jesus? I don't recall.

Not sure if Jesus mentioned ALL the canonical booke either, does that mean we should get rid of the ones he didn't mention?

Jesus also never mentioned that he was an angel or a specific angel, so by your line of thought, he never was.

Can't have it both ways.

RubaDub

Not sure if this will cast any light on the topic but the name Michael is of Hebrew origin while Jesus is Puerto Rican.

I'm not sure if the same person would use such diverse names.

Rub a Dub

The Son in two persons

Colossians 2:8 (New International Version)

Share this