The Son in two persons (page 30)

PSacramento

Narkissos,

Good points and let's not forget that Paul sais that "we will judge the angels" too.

Does that mean we will judge Jesus ?

reniaa

Hi nark

I'm just saying is we can get too speculative when trying to understand how things happen that lead us away from the truth of the bible.

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

we know the word became flesh biblically do we need to know more? speculating to the point we deny this scripture?

We know Jesus is God's son do we need to know more?

I still think this all boils down to people wanting to worship Jesus as God and trying to twist bible scripture to that end.

Reniaa

RubaDub

Paul sais that "we will judge the angels" too

Word has it that Simon Cowell will be involved.

Rub a Dub

PSacramento

Reniaa,

I totally agree that we DO NOT need to "no more" than what is plainly sated in regards to Jesus: He is the Son of God, in him dwells al that God is, he is our Lord and saviour.

As for worship, as as Jesus points out, as we honour him, we honour that fathers, as we view , we obey or perhaps even worship, we worship the Father.

reniaa

hi psacrmento

michael is said to be chief of the angels that is different from just being an Angel. Michael himself has leadership over Angels biblically

Reniaa

PSacramento

Michael is names as ONE of the Chief Princes, the one that is "assigned" to the nation of Israel, again harks back to 1Enoch.

Daniel and Revelation have much of Enoch.

Leolaia

reniaa....

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.

The problem of how Jesus is both God and man (a concept that preceded trinitarianism per se) is irrelevant to the relationship between the Son and the Father. In trinitarian theology, when Jesus referred to God as seperate from himself, he was referring to the Father (another person of the trinity), not a "multiple personality" within himself.

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?

Since the biblical model is that God formed Adam's body from dust, I don't think this would have been viewed as an unsolvable problem for Jews and Christians who believed in the resurrection of the body.

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?

What you've written here bears no relation to what many Christians (some of whom may be trinitarian, like Bishop NT Wright) believe who accept the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection in some form. Paul is clear that spiritual beings of heaven have bodies and the resurrected will likewise have bodies (1 Corinthians 15:35-43); it's just the latter have a different kind (incorruptible, immortal, glorious) of body. He refers to the mortal corruptible body being "changed" (allassó) in v. 52-53, i.e. the body becomes incorruptible and immortal (cf. Paul's use of this word in Galatians 4:20 to refer to his change in tone from unemotional to emotional). Paul again refers to the transformation of corruptible bodies into immortal ones in Philippians 3:20-21:

"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform (metasckématisei) our lowly bodies (to sóma tés tapeinoseón hemón) so that they will have the same form (sunmorphon) as his glorious body (tó sómati tés doxés autou)".

Notice that Jesus has a body but it is a glorious one. He got it in the resurrection, just as Paul and his brethren would get their bodies of glory in the resurrection. Jesus had his "lowly body" transformed in the resurrection into a new kind of body; it is the same body but its nature has changed into something greater than corruptible flesh.

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

According to Paul, it changed into a new kind of body; it transformed from flesh into something glorious, incorruptible, and immortal. But it is still has a continuity of existence with the body of flesh; what is sown is raised up (1 Corinthians 15:42). The same logic is found in the "empty tomb" story in the gospels. Jesus' resurrected body has marks of the crucifixion because the body laid in the tomb has been raised. That is why the tomb is empty. This story counters the docetic claim that Jesus only "seemed" to be human; Ignatius of Antioch specifically appeals to the resurrection appearances to refute the claim that the risen Jesus was a bodiless spirit, as Jesus said to Peter: "Take, handle me, and see that I am not a spirit without a body" (Smyrnaeans 3:2). The Society however takes a quasi-docetic view and claims that there was no continuity of existence between Jesus' resurrection body and his former body of flesh. In contrast to the Pauline view of the resurrection, the Society teaches that "Jehovah God evidently disposed of Jesus' fleshly body in his own way, possibly disintegrating it into the atoms of which it was constituted" (Insight, 1988, Vol. 1, p. 841). This meant that the risen Jesus "had to materialize on each occasion a body of flesh and bones" (15 April 1963 Watchtower, p. 236), and "for the benefit of doubting Thomas Jesus did appear with the physical evidence of nail prints in his hands and a spear wound in his side" (1 August 1975 Watchtower, p. 479). According to the Society, Jesus did not have these wounds because his body was the same one that was laid in the tomb; it was part of a more elaborate scheme involving Jehovah getting rid of Jesus' original body and then Jesus materializing a facsimile of that body in order to convince his disciples that he had the "physical evidence" of being truly the same person who had died, even though the wounds were really not from the crucifixion. This flies against the whole logic of the story. One could just as well wonder if this was really an angel (maybe a wicked angel, maybe even Satan) who materialized a body with wound marks in order to trick the disciples.

The issue here is that the Society teaches a resurrection doctrine that really isn't resurrection; it is something more akin to re-creation. In Jesus' case, what was sown is not what is raised and in the case of people returning in the resurrection, there isn't any transformation of bodies. For example, the Society teaches that the "resurrection has already begun" since 1918, such that anointed Christians are immediately resurrected to heaven when they die. But what is resurrected, or raised up? The body itself isn't changed or transformed; it remains as it is, where it always must be buried or disposed of. And since there is no soul or essence of a person that survives death, there is no continuity in that respect either. It is the same problem I mentioned with respect to the non-incarnation of the heavenly Son. The re-created person is by definition some other person than the individual who dies. If an anointed person dies, and he is re-created in heaven "in a twinkling of an eye" at that moment of death, and if the original body is not transformed into the resurrected person but, say, is resuscitated an hour after death by doctors (miracles happen), then how is the resurrected person in heaven the same person as the original individual? Or God could potentially re-create 144,000 copies of the same individual; neither is such creative activity logically dependent on the demise of the original. The biblical Pauline view, on the other hand, claims that original body is transformed into a spiritual body; it is the same body but it undergoes a change in nature and likeness. But the Society cannot endorse such a view and claim at the same time that the resurrection has already begun, and occurs immediately at death, or else we'd see the anointed undergo something like the Transfiguration everytime one dies.

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

That is what I would call shifting the goal posts. Jesus wasn't the one who referred to "Michael the archangel", the author of Jude is the only one in the Bible who calls Michael by that title and he does so while citing a pseudepigraphal book. One could just as well say that since Jesus didn't confirm the existence of archangels or refer at all to this word, we should set aside the whole question of what an "archangel" is supposed to be.

Oh, and by the way, you do know that quite a few passages of what Jesus says in the gospels is practically verbatim with what is written in 1 Enoch, right? And that the author of Jude claims to be a brother of James and Jesus? The Society regards him as "a half brother of Christ Jesus" (Insight, 1988, Vol. 2, p. 132).

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.

Your logic only makes sense if you presume that Jesus only regarded a book as scripture if he made explicit reference to it in the (brief, incomplete) gospels. So am I to assume that every book of our OT is mentioned by name by Jesus in the gospels? Why does the NT make references to books like 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses while there is not a single allusion anywhere in the NT to Esther or the Song of Solomon?

reniaa

hi leolaia

Aren't you saying opposites here?

Your saying Jesus needed his fleshly body to be raised?

But humans don't need the dust body that now is long gone to be raised spirits?

this is all philosophical speculation.

so the fleshly Jesus gets raised into Glory so what happens to the 'son the God' Jesus in heaven who apparently raised the fleshly Jesus?

John 2:19
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

trinitarians believe Jesus does this literally to himself. So Jesus dies the 'God the son' bit doesn't it floats to heaven while the flesh bit stays dead for 3 days. Then the 'god the son' bit with help from the 'father God' and 'the holy spirit god' raises the flesh Jesus who then wonders about for a bit preaching and teaching until his accension to Glory. at that point do we have two Jesus's one on earth and one in heaven?

Can you see what questions the hypostatic union theory creates?

If men can change from flesh to spirit why can't Jesus change from spirit to flesh. Yes it would not be easy and involve some 'emptying' but the bible does say he empties himself.

As for enoch, Jesus knew the hebrew canon, don't you think if they had it wrong he would have mentioned it?

My point still stands that there is a good chance that enoch derives it's information from acctual stories that were true but is much mythologised by the time Jesus came. So the bible writers only highlight what is applicable.

Daniel is a very contraversial book becasue of it's late addition among other things and it is interesting that Jesus specifically mentions it by name.

And you know that while enoch 1 is fairly readable, the rest of enoch is very elaborate and not in the bible style. Enoch does not have consistency in style that bible books have.

Reniaa

Chalam

Word has it that Simon Cowell will be involved

LOL!

Good the hear he got saved :)

I wonder if he will give all his $$$ to the poor now?!

All the best,

Stephen

Deputy Dog

reniaa

I still think this all boils down to people wanting to worship Jesus as God

John 5:22

For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

You just may be right.

The Son in two persons

Share this