I don't have a %. What we are told from Scripture is that he "became flesh" and that he "emptied himself" so that he was no longer what he was, but he was something else. The WHO remained the same, the WHAT changed.
Mondo1
JoinedPosts by Mondo1
-
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.
-
-
-
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
Leolaia,
For this next portion of my response, I'm merely going to quote from the source you mentioned, Fekkes, on the use of the title "the first and the last" for Jesus Christ. I believe the reference sufficiently responds on the issue, and though I am not 100% in agreement with all of the points made, my simple point is to show the validity of not taking the title in the sense used for God within Isaiah, but with a connection to his resurrection.
First on Revelation 1:17-18:
"In what way, then, is Christ here the First and the Last? What is the basis for his authority? Among commentators, two views appear most prominent. One group understands the designation as an expression of Christ's eternity, which underlies his authority as the Lord of all history. The other group connects the title with the event of Christ's resurrection and subsequent enthronement, which authenticated his past existence, confirmed his divine authority, and established him as God's agent of salvation and judgment.""The first view is based on the assumption that all three double titles, whether applies to God or Christ, have exactly the same force. Yet this overlooks the fact that first and last is reserved for Christ alone. Not only is it associated with the resurrection explicitly in two of its three uses (1.17-18; 2.8), but John relates Christ's 'firstness' specifically to the resurrection when it 1.5 he calls him the 'firstborn from the dead'. In addition, he repeatedly gives evidence that Christ's victory over death is the basis of his authority over the church and the world. It appears then the second view best accords with the immediate context and John's overall perspective."
On Revelation 2:8-
"It is surely significant that John here does not merely take over the first and last designation from 1.17, but retains its connection with the resurrection." -
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
The problem with the dual nature hypothesis is that it is contradictory to say that one person is 100% two things. One could be part one thing and part another, but not 100% of two completely different things.
-
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
Again, one is an epistle. There cannot be a speaker change within an epistle, because there is one writing a letter. You are comparing two completely different types of literature that were written by two different authors, who possessed two different writing styles. Rev. 1:9 and 22:8 are very clear. With 22:8 having such close proximity to 22:16, it is hard to image a different use in 22:16.
-
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 don't have to "explain it away." Trinitarians are actually the ones that must do this, for they must "explain away" the context. Notice what Fekkes states on 1:17-18: "In what way, then, is Christ here the First and the Last? What is the basis for his authority? Among commentators, two views appear most prominent. One group understands the designation as an expression of Christ's eternity, which underlies his authority as the Lord of all history. The other group connects the title with the event of Christ's resurrection and subsequent enthronement, which authenticated his past existence, confirmed his divine authority, and established him as God's agent of salvation and judgment. "The first view is based on the assumption that all three double tiles, whether applies to God or Christ, have exactly the same force. Yet this overlooks the fact that first and last is reserved for Christ alone. Not only is it associated with the resurrection explicitly in two of its three uses (1.17-18; 2.8), but John relates Christ's 'firstness' specifically to the resurrection when it 1.5 he calls him the 'firstborn from the dead'. In addition, he repeatedly gives evidence that Christ's victory over death is the basis of his authority over the church and the world. It appears then the second view best accords with the immediate context and John's overall perspective." on 2:8- "It is surely significant that John here does not merely take over the first and last designation from 1.17, but retains its connection with the resurrection." Trinitarians must "explain away" the context, as I said. The context shows him the first and the last with respects the resurrection, not as God is.
-
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
I believe I already stated that I don't know. You act like it is my burden to defend what they have done. Newsflash: It isn't.
-
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
What, exactly, is a prayer, in your theology, Mondo1? What does prayer mean? Is this requirement of invisibility one you made up to suit your dogma, or do you have some basis for insisting that prayer is only to things unseen?
I generally consider prayer to be a message that is spoken outwardly or inwardly to a deity not in your presence.
Revelation 1:9 and 22:8 do not denote a change in speaker. Nor does the text in any way indicate that as a function of the construct. That is what threw me off. You said the construction denoted a change in speaker in two other places. Upon examining the texts you cited, I realize you are mistaken.
No, I'm not. In Revelation 1:8 we have God speaking. John cuts in at verse 9. In Revelation 22:7 we have the angel speaking, John cuts in at verse 8.
In the case of Revelation 22, it also does not denote a change in speaker. It does denote something in all three cases, however. For this purpose it is not an uncommon construction at all. It denotes that the speaker personally affirms what follows, affixes his name to what is recorded, as a personal guarantor of the validity. (1 Corinthians 10:1; Galatians 5:2; Ephesians 3:1; Colossians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; Philemon 19)
What on earth does the use of it within an epistle have to do with the use of it in this piece of apocalyptic literature? Nothing at all. I stand by what I said, for the evidence of the use within the book of Revelation is clear in that a speaker change is presented.
Mondo1: You mentioned that Jehovah is also coming quickly. But, once again, failed to give a reference. You can add Revelation 2:16 to the earlier list a gave, for a total of 5 occurrences of Jesus coming quickly versus the zero count of anyone else "coming quickly". Your assertion that verse 7 is the angel referring to itself as coming quickly is unfounded, since the angel is speaking for Jesus, the one who sent the angel.
Nothing suggests that the angel stopped speaking or that it is speaking "for Jesus." There is no reason that the angel could not say it, for the NT is clear in that Jesus will come with the angels. (Mat. 16:27) Further, the Bible also speaks of the Father coming. In fact, the very text in which Revelation 22:12 is sourced from does so, Isaiah 40:10, where the Messiah is seen in "the arm of Jehovah" (cf. Isa 53:1) ruling for the Jehovah that comes. This is also brought out in Daniel 7:22 and Luke 20:13-16.
-
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
The text itself rules out any type of true plural reading by the use of singulars for the plurals.
Further, the context never indicates that another elohim is spoken of or that the speaker changes or the performer of the action(s) change. With nothing to show this, such a conclusion is without basis.
-
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
The "Look! I am coming quickly" escaped you entirely, did it not? WHO is coming quickly? I asked that you read the context...verse 20 is the clue, if you can actually consider a direct statement a "clue." Your assumption about the change of speaker is invalidated on the basis that the phrase "I am coming quickly" is used four times exclusively to refer either to kurios or to Jesus specifically. (Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20)
Actually, my argument is 100% valid, but your argument only begs the question. Is the Father also said to be coming? Yes he is. The angel uses the same phrase only a few verses back for himself. (22:7)
The slaves are Jesus' slaves, according to Revelation 1:1, and the revelation was given to him by God , and Jesus sent his angel to show his slaves. Try matching that verse up to Revelation 22:6 in the NWT .
Actually, grammatically, the slaves are God's not Jesus', in 1:1 so go ahead and match that up with 22:6. Jesus is the messenger of 22:6, God from 1:1 remains God.
Additionally, I could not find that "I, name, action" construction in any other instance and would appreciate the references so that I might verify your unsourced claim.
1:9 and 22:8.
With regard to John 5:28, 29...I agree with you. Jesus prayed that the Father would receive his spirit. Was that an uncommon prayer in those days?
Again, Jesus was in plain sight of Stephen. When you are looking at somebody that hardly counts as a prayer.
And since John 5:28, 29 explains Stephen asking that Jesus receive his spirit, why does not the same passage cast suspicion on the replacing of the judge from "Lord" (Jesus, contextually) to "Jehovah", particularly if that was the words of Christ that Stephen had on his mind at the moment?
It is a possible interpretation. The passage could go either way, and there would be no conflict.
-
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 don't see how you can do as much. The plural elohim does nothing for polytheism, when the singular is used with the plural to demand the use of the majestic plural. The "us" "our" use shows only that the elohim is talking to one other than that elohim, so the same would be true.