You didn't make a point! You are attempting to disregard the irrefutable evidence of grammar. God breathed life into Adam. Notice God said "let us MAKE" but only "HE" created. The one that created, the Father, did it, Christ merely served in an intermediate role... what exactly what included in that role we are not told, but perhaps it was to set forth how the creation might appear, and hence some translations render Prov. 8:30 as "chief architect."
Mondo1
JoinedPosts by Mondo1
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
-
-
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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
Apples and oranges. We are talking about THE resurrection, not a temporary return to life. The one where immortality is put on. The one that is spoken of in Phil. 3 where it says that the individuals "change." No such change took place in those texts.
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
For the sake of time, I'm making this a general response, not directed at anyone in particular, but just addressing various points.
Matthew 28 and Jesus having all authority is not overly significant, in light of it being necessarily given to him. If he simply possessed it because of who or what he was/is, then it would be, but as it is given, it is not.
Revelation 11:17, whether it says "Lord" or "Jehovah" is a reference to the Father. (cf. vs. 15)
I would agree that Romans 10 is a rather odd place to insert the divine name. As the context is speaking of "the Lord Jesus Christ" it would seem that kurios would refer to him. However, in line with that, I would not that kurios would then by taken as a title, not a name, per the use within the context.
An example with proskunew would be Revelation 3:9 where, for example, the NASB says "bow down before your feet" in reference to what is done before the church in Philadelphia.
For Zech. 12:10, there are a number of translation questions there, but if we accept the typical translation, one cannot disregard the change to the third person pronoun "him" in the very same verse, which brings to mind Jesus' words in Matt. 25:45. Doing it to the one God sent (hence the "him" in the text) is to do it to God himself.
The A&W is the Father.
No prayer is present in the quoted portions of Revelation 5.
Mondo
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini 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 was thinking the same thing about you with your "absurd" comment. I merely replied in kind. You did nothing in this most recent post but do a broken record. You said that "the NT clearly identifies Christ as our maker and creator." Well I already demonstrated otherwise. Never is Christ given the title of "Creator" and never is he shown to be the source of creation. He is always seen as the intermediate agent. God was not merely the architect, but he was the source of it all. (1Cor. 8:6) Hence only he is ever, Biblically, given the "creator" title. Jesus is, at most, Scripturally called "a master worker" or "chief architect". (Prov. 8:30)
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
LL
I can hardly see what the divine name being added to the New Testament has to do with declaring a different good news.
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
Hellrider,
Well those aren't very specific! Mantey was definitely upset theologically, as his letter to the WT shows, and within his letter his issues were definitely unjustified. Stafford really brought this to light in his response. It seems that most of the John 1:1 issues were based upon an abuse of the converse of Colwell's rule, and so those lacked any validity at all.
The obeisance/worship issue is hardly justified either, for Bible translations regularly translate that different. They translate it as worship for Christ because that is what *their theology* teaches, but they translate it other was in other places. So it isn't a matter of bias, just interpretation in translation. There is a difference.
And finally, on the Lord/Jehovah issue, I don't think there is any ambiguity at all. The Bible is very clear on who they are.
Mondo
-
137
New World Translation Brackets!!
by gold_morning infor what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
-
-
Mondo1
No, I do not deny that they have added it, but frankly, if I had to choose between adding it and taking it away, as long as there is some level of justification in adding it (i.e. that it is a quote or allusion to an OT passage and the context does not demand that it not be present), I'd rather see it added then removed.
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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
You had said: "This "resurrected man" with an archangel's voice, is he human (like me or you)? Or spirit, you know like say..., an angel?"
My reply was if he was a man or a spirit, and I said both, not in that he had a dual nature, but in that a resurrected man is spirit.
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini 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 position is 100% in line with the grammatical structure used in those texts, which demonstrates clearly that Jesus is not the source of creation, but the intermediate agent. Numerous sources testify to this. Dana and Mantey state: "Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the ????? as the intermediate agent." Marvin Vincent: "The preposition dia is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as dia t?? p??f?´t??, through the prophet (Matthew 1:22, on which see note)." The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key: "The prep[osition] w[ith] the gen[itive] describes Christ as the intermediate instrument of creation (Abbott; Lightfoot)." And even Origen! "Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage [John 1:3, which uses the same grammar as Colossians 1:16] also, through the ?????, then they were not made by the ?????, but by [one] stronger and greater than He."
So don't call my position absurd, when grammatically it is explicit. You should research your arguments a bit better first. The Father is explicitly shown to be the source (1Cor. 8:6).
Mondo
-
396
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus ini 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
So, there you have it, Mondo1 says that even if Jesus is the Creator, He is only a lesser Creator than The Father. That's the same argument the Watchtower uses in the "Reasoning" book, where they said that even if Jesus is God (Romans 9:5), and not just "a god," it still means that Jesus was a lesser, inferior god than Jehovah.
This isn't a WT argument. Even Trinitarian scholars recognize that Jesus took on the role as the intermediate in creation. BDAG discusses this sufficiently, as do many others. For Romans 9:5, that would be quite true, for there is no basis in concluding that God is polypersonal. One must assume that a priori to come to the conclusion that Jesus is qeos in the same way as the Father. As the Bible does nothing to lay out a polypersonal God, there is no reason to assume that he exists in such a way.
Trinitarians acknowledge that The Father is the Ultimate Source, but they also believe Jesus had a much, much, much larger role in creation than gravity or dirt.
I would agree with that. I only took these two things as an example to show how it applies and how if these things could be included, how much more so could Jesus.
In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, The Father Himself gives Jesus MUCH MORE credit for creation than you do at Hebrews 1:10.
Sure he does. This perfectly parallels Jesus as Wisdom and Understanding (Prov. 8:14) when in Proverbs 3:19 it says: "Jehovah by Wisdom founded the earth, by understanding he established the heavens." Albert Barnes notes: This thought, developed in Prov 8, is the first link in the chain which connects this ‘Wisdom’ with the Divine Word, the Logos of John’s Gospel."
Mondo