Posts by Mondo1

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.

Mondo1

LittleToe,

My comment was not based upon Biblical interpretation, but a simply dealing with facts and figures.

Mondo

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.

I made a very clear point and you have repeatedly avoided it. Revelation 22:16 uses the personal pronoun with a proper noun, a use that only occurs three times in the book of Revelation, both other times to show a speaker change. This is seen in Rev. 1:9, 22:8 and also 22:16. The fact that Jesus is said to be coming does not mean that another is not also coming. Further, Revelation 1:8 demands that the Father be "the Alpha and Omega," which of course would not mean the son couldn't in some way be called it, but it shows that the Father here is. (For Rev. 1:8 identifies the speaker as "he who is, who was and who is coming," who is spoken of on Rev 1:4, while 1:5 says "and Jesus Christ," showing Jesus to be one other than this one.)

Mondo

239

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

by Hellrider in

i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.

...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.

i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.

Mondo1

Hellrider,

It is amazing that you think the use of "God" for Jesus means that he is the Almighty or that God is a Trinity. There is no issue for me today to use "God" to describe Jesus as much of the early church did, and yet it does nothing to bring about the Trinity.

Mondo

239

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

by Hellrider in

i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.

...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.

i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.

Mondo1

Littletoe,

Obviously it would have to, for that would make the Holy Spirit created.

Mondo

239

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

by Hellrider in

i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.

...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.

i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.

Mondo1

Kenneson,

Maybe you can show me what specifically you are thinking of, I don't see it.

Mondo

239

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

by Hellrider in

i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.

...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.

i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.

Mondo1

Kenneson,

I couldn't tell you why the NWT translators chose the neuter pronoun over the feminine. The reason the feminine is used is because of grammatical gender, where the Hebrew noun is a feminine noun, thus demanding the Hebrew feminine pronoun. I couldn't tell you, but it really doesn't matter either. The NWT is just a translation. For 9:13, I couldn't figure out what you were refering to. Here is the verse:

Proverbs 9:13 A foolish woman is noisy; she is thoughtless, and she knows not what.

Mondo

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.

Mondo1

BelieverInJesus,

If I am wrong in my argument on Revelation 22:12-13 relative to verse 16, address my argument and show me how it is wrong. But don't side step what I said, actually deal with the argument that I made.

Mondo

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.

Mondo1

I can't believe somebody would post a link to one such as Macgregor Ministries. I've read there material and scholarship and exegesis is something that is entirely missing. Most unfortunate that ones actually buy into stuff that is so easily proven untrue.

Mondo

239

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

by Hellrider in

i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.

...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.

i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.

Mondo1

Kenneson,

Well the LXX literally reads "created" which is also proper in the Hebrew. So it says what it says, but contextually we are dealing not with the attribute of Wisdom (which is to say that God is wise and so he has wisdom) but with personified Wisdom, and one way things are personified is by a person in whom the characteristic is displayed. When a person personifies an attribute it is normal for the person to be identified as the attribute.

Mondo

239

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

by Hellrider in

i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.

...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.

i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.

Mondo1

I'm surprised that you are surprised that I would use this argument, as it is a known trend within the New Testament. For example, though specifically commenting no the book of Hebrews, the words of G.W. Buchanan come to mind: "Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah." ( Buchanan, George Wesley. The Anchor Bible, Vol36, To The Hebrews. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.) 22. )

To determine if it is an out of context quote, one would look both at the context of the use within the New Testament, to determine if they understood it as refering to the same thing as the context in which it was originally quoted, and also the context of the original quote, to determine if it was a prophecy that, for example, was Messianic in nature.

As an example, Hebrews 1:5 quotes from 2 Samuel 7:14. 2 Samuel spoke of Solomon and "when he sins," a text that could not in its entirety refer to Christ, who did not sin. The author of Hebrews merely found the words in question to be appropriate for Jesus in light of the events that transpired, and so the language was borrowed, without at all indicating that the context of 2 Samuel had anything to do with Jesus Christ.

Similarly then, I have no problem with the concept of "the first and the last" being language that was borrowed from Isaiah in the sense of 2 Samuel 7, however, as the use was of him as "the one who became dead and is alive forevermore," I do not see a connection with the context of the original passage, and I do not think such a link is justified.

For Christ as "the living one," the language strikes me as entirely appropriate of the resurrected Christ. Now in possession of immortality via the resurrection, which would be the point of that statement (for again, that is what is being delt with in context), how could this not be said of him?

Mondo