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

Deputy Dog,

Acts there says nothing about believing in a Trinity.

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 used "attempt" because nobody can successfully take for themselves equality with God. What I'm saying is that he was already EN MORFH QEOU but in that MORFH he could either grasp for equality with God or not do it. If he did do it, it would only be an attempt, for nobody can successfully take equality with God for themselves. But he didn't do that. hUPARCWN is concessive, so although he was already in that form, he did not grasp for equality with God. He did not intend to "rape" it from God.

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

lovelylil,

I have to disagree. Instead of trying to explain it all here, let me refer you to an article on the subject: Jesus Christ - Wisdom Personified.

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

Deputy Dog,

Trinitarians believe that God is one being, with three co-equal, co-eternal persons. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son not the Holy Spirit, etc.

And your new translation is even more sickening than the first. Why don't you get something that is a bit more literal. This most recent one is nothing short of a paraphrase.

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

ellderwho,

Perhaps you should start exegeting those passages, because none of these are helping you.

------------------------------------
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man is destined to come in the gloryl of his Father with his angels, and then he will recompense each one according to his behavior.

Mar 8:38 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when he arrives in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
----------------------

Luke 9:26 also speaks of Jesus coming "in the glory... of the holy angels." To come in the glory of them does not mean that he possess their glory or that they share it somehow.

--------------------------------
Joh 17:22 Also, I have given them the glorythat you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.
--------------------

How does this help you? If God giving glory to Jesus makes Jesus God, Jesus giving glory to his disciples makes his disciples God.

--------------------
Heb 1:3 He is the reflection of[his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.------------------------

Can't see how this one helps you either. He still doesn't possess God's glory. He doesn't have it shared with him. He reflects it or radiates it. It is not a glory that becomes Jesus' or that God is sharing with Jesus. It is still God's.

----------------------------
From your response, the onus, my friend is upon you to explain a seperate "glory" for Christ.
-----------------------

Gladly. Luke 9:26 does it. You have two options. Either God, Jesus and the angels all share one glory, or they all have a unique glory. Based upon that text it is one or the other, you cannot have it one way for God and Jesus and another for them and the angels, for the syntax is the same for all three. Either way you want to look at it, this one pretty well shootts the Trinitarian doctrine in the butt.

-----------------------------------
Same here, you arbitrarily create a scenerio unique to your own perspective without scriptual backing.
-----------------------

Actually I'm just taking what the text says for what it says. It speaks of the glory that God had with Jesus. If a person is with another, and one has glory and the other has glory, there is nothing that says they are sharing glory. It is absolute eisegesis to say that they are sharing it.

-------------------------------
Your argument is still with scripture. Judges has nothing to do with what Jehovah directly states, as he is desribing his attributes.
-------------------------

No, my argument is with you taking that text out of context. What does a text dealing with idols have to do with Jesus???? Nothing! You are abusing God's word, and I can confidently say that it is something he does not take kindly to. Ehud is directly said to be a savior. So either this is a contradiction, or you are taking this text out of context. I will go with the latter.

--------------------------------
Im sure you would say the same of Isaiah 45:5. Because it directly clashes with your Jo.1:1

Isa 45:5 I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God. I shall closely gird you, although you have not known me
------------------------

I will again note that you are taking the text out of context. It is a text dealing with idols. I suggest you start reading in Isaiah 40 and establish yourself the context of what is being discussed. Why are you so determined to take these passages out of context???

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,

---------------------------
Yes, please explain your logic on Rev 22-12-16. How do you get that it jumps from father to son? It's clear to me, that it's Jesus speaking throughout these verses.
-----------------------

There are several points we could note, but here are two. 1) The use of a personal pronoun, proper name, appears three times in the book of Revelation. Once in 1:9, once in 22:8 and once in 22:16. Both other times it denotes a speaker change. It would be natural for it to mean such in 22:16 as well. 2) Revelation 22:12 is a quote from Isaiah 40:10, which speaks of the Father and his arm ruling for him, who is the Messiah himself. (Isa. 53:1) The quoted text is dealing with the Father, giving strong indication that the speaker is the Father.

------------------------------
So here on earth Nebuchadnezzer was referred to as king of kings. But Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world."
--------------------------

When God identified Nebuchadnezzar as "king of kings," he did not say: "You are the king of kings of earthly kings." The qualifier you are adding... you are adding.

---------------------------------
Pet's is NON-specific. Cat's and Dog's are more-specific. If I refer to my dog I say "the 3 year old miniture dachsund named Luigi Francesco. Which is highly specific. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Is VERY specific.
-----------------

No, it really isn't very specific at all. He is that in what way? When Jesus is identified as the first and the last, it is with reference to the resurrection. Jesus makes this clear in Revelation 1 and 2, for both times he identifies himself as the first and the last, it is not a bare statement, but he is such as the one "who became dead and is alive forevermore." With God, he is the first and the last in the existence of all things. It means that God is the first to exist and he will exist for all eternity. With Jesus, he is the first to be raised to immortality (Rev. 1:5), and being immortal he will exist for all eternity.

-------------------------
Look at verse 12...who is "coming quickly"? Look down at verse 20 ""...Yes, I am coming quickly" Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
-----------------------

Nobody denies that Jesus is coming, but that doesn't mean the Father isn't in some way also. Not only does Isaiah 40:10 speak of it, but in a parable, Jesus spoke of it as well. See Mark 12:6-9. There Jesus is represented by the Son and God is represented by the owner of the Vineyard.

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

Deputy Dog,

Somebody seems to be getting upset...

----------------------------
"What, Scripturally, was Jesus' role?" I'm glad you asked -------------------------

It is great that you quoted from John 2, but I already referenced John 2, and it does not answer my question! The Bible is clear in that it would be the Father that would raise Jesus. As Jesus is not the Father, what did Jesus due that was distinct from the Father?

------------------------------------
You have to stop believing the watchtower lie that Trinitarians believe this crap. Who ever said that Jesus was the Father? Don't put words in my mouth and I wont put words in yours. Of course the Father is not the Son, But, they are both God.
--------------------------

Here is where we see you getting upset. Where did I say Trinitarians believed that? I didn't. I am quite aware of what Trinitarians do and do not believe, but for all I know, you are a Sebellian.

--------------------------
Jesus took the role of the servant (Son), who as God, submitted to the Law
---------------------

This tells me nothing of what role Jesus played in his own resurrection. What specifically did he do that was distinct from what the Father did?

------------------------------------
Mondo, when are you going to bow the knee?
------------------------

I already do. When are you going to get a better translation? Yours really messes up 6b and 7a. Try the NASB.

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

A number of lines of evidence. First, the allusions to both Proverbs 8 and Jewish Wisdom literature within quotes of the New Testament that relate to Jesus. This in itself does not prove anything, but we must consider all of the evidence. Second, the fact that Jesus is both directly and indirectly called Wisdom. Third, there can be only one first created, because first is first and first of creation is the first of creation, and Wisdom is it and so is Jesus. (Prov. 8:22; Rev. 3:14) Of course if you'd like to dispute the translation and meaning of those two texts, I'm certainly more than willing to do so... but really, the primary line of evidence is simply the fact that Jesus is called "Wisdom" directly, both by Paul and by Jesus himself, speaking in the third person.

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

LittleToe,

Are you refering to Genesis 1:26? If so, I would say as there is no record of anybody ever saying anything *to* the Spirit in Scripture, this is pretty unlikely.

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,

Let us apply your logic elsewhere.

Cats are called pets
Dogs are called pets

It doesn't work. Jesus is called King of Kings, but God himself called Nebuchadnezzar King of kings. So is Nebuchadnezzar Jesus? No!

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.

As for my education, which areas of my education? I am self taught in much, but formally taught in some.

Mondo