Posts by Hellrider

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

First of all, this strawman-stuff is getting old. From the Wikipedia-dictionary:

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

What you are saying, is exactly the same as the text: That when Jesus use the term The First and The Last, it is different than when Yahweh uses it, because Yahweh uses it in the sense eternal, existing for all eternity, while when Jesus uses it, it means "The First and the Last, the Living One, who was dead", as in "the First one to be ressurected and who now lives forever". Now, this really doesn`t say anything at all, because this alternative meaning of the term "the first and the last" rests upon the halt in Jesus` existence! Now, what I did, was to analyse the text given! In my opinion, the texts basic argument is that Jesus is excluded from fulfilling the outlayed definition of "the first and the last" because he (according to the text) has not been eternal. The halt in Jesus existence (his three days of death) are used as an excuse to introduce this alternative meaning of the expression "the first and the last". This whole "new meaning" of the expression rests on Jesus` death! - and there is nothing in the passage in Rev that indicates that the authors intention is to introduce a new meaning (just because "The Living One, who was dead" follows the expression). Your problem is that you are so brainwashed that you are unable to see the difference between a strawman and an analysis.

You have not done anything with the view presented on the speaker change in 22:16

I have no problem with the speaker change there. When I reacted about the "speaker change", it was because you made it seem like there was a speaker change in Rev 1.

you have not touched anything further on 22:12 in relation to Isaiah 40:10

I have no problem with that either. "I am the First and the Last" belongs to God, and God alone. All trinitarians will absolutely agree with you on that. And that is part of the reason why they cocnlude that Jesus is part of God. Because he is using this expression too.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

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).

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

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.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

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)

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

Mondo:

Touchy touchy. Use of words such as "amateurish" and "pathetic" show that the material has made you very uncomfortable.

I am sorry you got that impression. I truly felt that that text was amateurish and pathetic (in the sense "absolutely not impressed"), but perhaps I should not have worded it so strongly.

----------------------------------
...the text tries to invalidate Jesus direct words, his direct claim to be (also) "the first and the last" by referring to his death, arguing that this death invalidates him as one who is "the first and the last (also)" (because he would then, at one point "not be" at all). This is ridiculous. Seriously, it is pathetic.
-----------------------------
Strawman. The text does not at all argue for what you claim. It argues that Jesus, in identifying himself as the first and the last, does not do so openly, but he is "the first and the last, who became dead and is alive forevermore." It is apparently that exegetically, you don't have a response, because the statements made in the article are true. The article does nothing to "invalidate" Jesus' words, it only recognizes the fact that Jesus makes the claim not openly, as with God, but in a specific way.

(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:

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, for as the first he was before anything else, and as the last his existence is unending, If all were to cease existing he would remain. Jesus, on the other hand, was the first to receive the resurrection to immortality. (c.f 1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5) As such, he is the first to experience this and in his immortality (1 Cor. 15:53) he is forever existing and hence he is appropriately identified as the last. [3]

Point proven. If you don`t understand what this paragraph actually says, then that is your problem, not mine.

The text does not argue that Jesus is "speaking on behalf of God."

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.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

Mondo: Ok, now I`ve read thru that link, and OMG, that is the biggest pile of amateurish crap I have ever come across. I especially like this part, and the pathetic attempt at trying to explain away Christs deity (as "the first and the last") by forcing a speaker-change into the text:

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?
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?

...and this:

Revelation 22:12-13 A disputed text presents itself in Revelation 22, where some will argue that the text speaks of Christ, while others that it speaks of God. The text speaks of “the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” These are all parallel expressions denoting the same thing. While the text is not qualified to show itself speaking of Christ as in Revelation 1:17-18 and 2:8, it would not necessarily need to be in light of the qualification having already been established in those two texts.

...the text tries to invalidate Jesus direct words, his direct claim to be (also) "the first and the last" by referring to his death, arguing that this death invalidates him as one who is "the first and the last (also)" (because he would then, at one point "not be" at all). This is ridiculous. Seriously, it is pathetic. First of all, at no time did Jesus stop existing. He went to Hades to preach to the incarcarated angels, prior to his ressurection. This after-death-state (living, but dead) is typical of both jewish and early christian beliefs (later on, as we come to Revelation, the soul-doctrine becomes much clearer). Second, the three days of death doesn`t even matter, not in the mind of the writer of the text! It is Jesus, the son of man himself, who places his hand on John, claiming, in his own words, and making a statement about himself (!!!) that he is "the first and the last". To claim that he is here speaking on behalf of God, is a ridiulous attempt at saving a non-trinitarian doctrine.

Also:

In examining this for Revelation 22:12-13 we find a reference to Isaiah 40:10 that proves to be extremely enlightening. Looking to this text we find a clear parallel to Revelation 22:12, which we find fulfilled in Revelation 22.

LoL. No, it is not "extremely enlighting". The NT is full of referneces and parallels to the OT, in which things (for lack of a better word) attributed to Yahweh in the NT is attributed to Jesus Christ. This is the point! It is these things that led to the development of the trinity-doctrine in the first place.

What kind of website is that, anyway? Is it jw? The doctrines and views sound so familiar, but it was written better than most WT-stuff. Is it one of those jw-dissident-groups?

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

Mondo:

hellride,
If you keep reading, you'll see I gave good reason to understand a speaker change, for there is something quite clear in the text that does show it.

Other than your overall Bible-doctrines/view? Let me see it then.

For Thomas' words, there is nothing that would make one take it in the Trinitarian sense either

That`s correct. According to Thomas, the Jesus standing before him could very well be (the most high) God himself. It could also be "god" used just as a title (as in "you are gods", a title used to signify the grandiosness of a person, like "lord"), but that is unlikely, taken into consideration that he just realised the extreme supernatural...ness of Jesus, having risen from the dead!

Yet the Trinitarian view isn't really that Jesus is "God," for Trinitarians don't *really* even believe that. They believe that God is Triune and Jesus is actually a PERSON of God.

...I don`t think you really understand the trinitarian view. To a trinitarian, there is nothing wrong about saying that Jesus "is God". To a trinitarian, when saying that "Jesus Christ is God", the statement wouldn`t be false, it would just be incomplete. And that is something quite different. Of course, the trinitarian view solves quite a lot of problems. In the non-trinitarian view (arian or jw), the person interpreting the Bible would have to interpret all the passages in which Jesus is called, or refers to himself in God-terms, as pasages in which the term "God" is used as just a title, in the same manner as a "lord" or "prophet". The problem is that there is nothing in the wording, nothing in the text that tells us when this approach is to be taken. So, what we are left with, is doctrine! - and overall Biblicall views. Without doctrine (!!!), there is nothing that would make you look at Thomas` words, and say "here the word God is used just as a title". And in my opinion, doctrine is something that should be derived from reading the texts, and not the other way around.

I`d like to see the reason for the speaker-change in Revelation now.

27

WHY NO LIBEL THREAT?

by Dansk in

i write this due to thinking about the problems trev and linda have had with watchtower regarding their website, which clearly states on the homepage that if one is a jw the site isn't for them.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/121693/1.ashx.

the site can be found here: http://beehive.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/default.asp?wci=sitehome&id=12882.

Hellrider

which clearly states on the homepage that if one is a JW the site isn't for them

...I don`t think these anti-jw-sites should even state that. It is not our problem that the WTS has a need for information-control.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Hellrider

Mondo:

The fact is actually that Revelation 22:12-13 is the Father, which I will be happy to demonstrate if you like. Jesus begins speaking in verse 16.

Why? Doesn`t Jesus calls himself "the beginning and the end" elsewhere in the texts? There is nothing in Rev 22 that indicates that there is a shift in speaker from verse 15 to 16, it is only your pre-established overall Bible-doctrines that says that this is the case. And, by the way, this is the case with most of your arguments. Whenver it fits your anti-trinitarian doctrines, Jesus is speaking on Gods behalf. Nothing new or shocking there, coming from a jw. Just same old same old, but the point is, that if it wasn`t for your allready established doctrines, there is nothing in the text that indicates that Jesus is "speaking on the fathers behalf" when he speaks of himself in God-like terms, there is nothing in the text that indicates that when Thomas says "my Lord and my God" that he is speaking of Jesus as "God-like", or even just a "god to him". It`s all in your doctrines (and I am neutral btw, not a christian, so I have no stakes in it).

47

Allowed blood products by %, from KM 06, how can a JW not see thru this

by jwfacts in

i have just put together a table with percentages that highlights quite simply what a jw can and can not have.

the wts does not present it in this simple format, as graphically it is quite obvious how senseless their stand is.

.

Hellrider

However since medical science is finding more and more ways to fractionate blood and more and more uses for these "New" fractions, the JW's have had to adapt

TD, ok.

Jesus, talk about making the day unecessary hard for the doctors: "Yes doctor, I can take ...(list of all the different little components of blood)...but only one fraction at a time. Yes, that is correct, you have to split it up into its different components, thank you".