Mondo1

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 283 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Mondo1

• 
  396

  Who is Jesus? Is he God?

  by BelieverInJesus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  hellrider,

  Clearly you have misunderstood the argument being made. You state:

  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:

  The author does not use his mortality to exclude him. At no time does the author say any such thing. What the author says is that he is the first and the last in reference to him being resurrected, so that he as the first and the last in that context. The author is stating that he is the first and the last as the one who became dead and is alive forevermore, not in any other way. This is the argument, not the one you have falsely built up. So it is a strawman, because the argument you are attempting to refute is not one that is made.

  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!

  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".

  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.

  Mondo
• 
  396

  Who is Jesus? Is he God?

  by BelieverInJesus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  DD,

  I have one true God, the Father. (Joh. 17:3) Jesus is only to receive worship because 1) God put him in a position to receive such (Phil. 2:8-11) and more specifically, because God actually commands it! (Heb. 1:6) If God commands the worship of someone, I do it. I do whatever he tells me.

  In light of that, I recognize that others are properly called gods (Psa. 8:5; 82:6; 136:2), but none of these have been placed in a position worthy of worship and so God does not command it for any of these. So I do not worship them.

  Quite simply, I accept what the Bible says on these matters and reject what it does not, always being careful to keep passages in context to make sure that I am properly understanding the intended meaning and that I am not creating an artificial meaning, which would be to make the text mean something out of context that it does not when in context.

  Mondo
• 
  396

  Who is Jesus? Is he God?

  by BelieverInJesus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  Let us see. You stated: (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:

  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.

  To claim that he is here speaking on behalf of God, is a ridiulous attempt at saving a non-trinitarian doctrine.

  Is this argued for in the text? Nope. So strawman.

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

  Reply: I am simply reading it and the text is entirely absent of what you claim it says. See the two points you argued above and then please show me in the paragraphs quoted where those arguments are made.

  You state: 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.

  The text says what it says. It is not complicated. God is the first and the last in all things, from eternity. Jesus Christ is the first and the last in the resurrection. Hence, when Jesus claims to be "the first and the last" he doesn't leave it at that alone, but as the one who "became dead and is alive forevermore." You seem to not be obfuscating.

  Mondo
• 
  396

  Who is Jesus? Is he God?

  by BelieverInJesus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  Hellrider,

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

  ----------------------------------
  ...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, at no time did Jesus stop existing. He went to Hades to preach to the incarcarated angels, prior to his ressurection.
  --------------------------

  This is an absolute red herring, for the text's arguments have nothing to do with this. This is a completely different subject all together, which in another thread I'd be happy to address, but I don't want to take us off topic.

  ---------------------------
  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).
  ---------------------

  The red herring continues....

  -----------------
  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.
  -------------------------

  Now we get a strawman. The text does not argue that Jesus is "speaking on behalf of God."

  -------------------------
  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.
  -----------------------

  You apparently missed *why* it is extremely enlightening. Because within that text we see the arm of Jehovah (which is seen in the Messiah - Isa. 53:1) rules for him, while Jehovah himself (thus the Father, as the Messiah is seen next to him) is coming. It demonstrates that the Father is coming also in the end times. As Rev. 22:12 alludes to Isaiah 40:10, a reference to the Father, and a speaker change is indicated in Revelation 22:16 (a point that you did not address from the article), it is naturally a reference to the Father speaking in 22:12-13.

  Mondo
• 
  19

  Who is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?

  by sanjanicole in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am studying about jw, and as i understand it you do not believe in the trinity, how can you not belive in something that the bible says is real, i understand that the word trinity itself is not in the bible, but that does not mean that it does not exist especially since the triune god is talked about in the bible...

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  sanjanicole,

  The key is that Strong's is a concordance, it is not a lexicon. It shows how the KJV translators translated a verse in a specific place. Simply because they translated a word a certain way does not mean that the word means that. For example, in Psalm 8:5 the Hebrew texts reads ELOHIM, yet the KJV translates it as "angels." ELOHIM never *means* angels, but the LXX translated it as AGGELOS, because the referent is the angels as ELOHIM (gods), so the KJV translators simply translated the text in line with an interpretation, not according to what the Hebrew itself means.

  In contrast, a Lexicon will show you the actual meanings of a word. I would suggest you drop Strongs if you want to understand word meaning.

  For Phil. 2:6, "a thing to be grasped" has nothing to do with our understanding. The text is saying that Jesus did not view equality with God as something he should reach after and try and take. He did not view this equality as "a thing to be grasped." Verse 7 tells us what he did do in contrast to this, which is what he didn't do.

  Now, for a text that clearly shows Jesus as created, I would point you to Revelation 3:14, where ARCH is translated as "beginning" and according to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, "the [meaning] beginning='first created' is linguistically probable." [emphasis added] This text, according to the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament is an allusion to Proverbs 8:22, which speaks of Wisdom being "created" as the first of God's works.

  Mondo
• 
  396

  Who is Jesus? Is he God?

  by BelieverInJesus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  ellderwho,

  You do love to play games, don't you. I did not backpeddle at all. I simply said that the Bible does not provide a specific definition, but that we can look a get a general idea. My two posts were complimentory, not contradictory. Luke 9:26 really shoots down your entire position, and as all can see, you are unable to deal with that text.

  Mondo
• 
  396

  Who is Jesus? Is he God?

  by BelieverInJesus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  hellrider,

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

  Reply: I discussed the background of the text and also the indicators of a change in speaker already. Instead of retying it all or searching for it to repost it, you can either jump back and take a look for yourself, or consider this link.

  You state: 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!

  Reply: All Christians will be raised in the last day, so by that argument Christians must be "God" too because of "extreme supernatural...ness." One really has to assume Trinitarianism to come to such a conclusion, for only a few verses prior in 20:17 does Jesus make it clear that he has his own God, while the Apostle John concludes by explaining that these things are recorded not so we might believe that Jesus is God, but the Son of God (of course to a Trinitarian he is both, but the point is that John did not claim that these things were recorded for us to believe the former view).

  You state: ...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.

  Reply: More likely, I understand the Trinitarian view *too well* because I know what they claim, but I know what they claim is not what they really mean. A Trinitarian claims that calling Jesus God is not false, but in fact they do not believe that he is God, because in fact they believe that God is the Triune God and Jesus is not the Triune God. They must say this is acceptable, because their theology falls apart if they do not say as much, but that doesn't make it what they really mean.

  As for Thomas, here you have a man standing before him. A resurrected man, but a man nonetheless. Somehow he is going to be viewing this one as the Almighty God? Nothing.. I repeat, nothing in the text gives anything to indicate that. In fact, it is not theology that so much would dictate a view contrary to the Trinitarian view, it is theology that would derive the Trinitarian view. I must assume that you do not have a full understanding of the meaning and application of the Greek word for god (QEOS).

  Mondo
• 
  396

  Who is Jesus? Is he God?

  by BelieverInJesus in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  ellderwho,

  You are beginning to clearly demonstration that you have no support for your position.

  You state: My apologies, Ive overlooked this post. So really you have no basis other than your own imagination of Christs' own glory.

  Reply: Is this really the best you have? You know full well that the Bible does not specifically define for us how this takes place. Now you're trying to play games instead of dealing with the issues. You are 100% transparent.

  You state: You seem to realize Christ has this glory but unsure of its particular origination, although you agree it comes from Jehovah you dont want it to be Jehovahs own glory. Even though Jehovah creates everything, or do you have a problem with that?

  Reply: If your argument is that it comes from Jehovah because Jehovah creates everything, as the angels have their own glory too (Luke 9:26), they must also be God per your argument. Quite simply, Jehovah is *never* said to "share" his glory with Jesus.

  You state: So your the one to explain what Jehovah really means when he says " I will share my glory with no one"

  Reply: Do tell, where did you get that quote from? Not from the Bible! You made it up! It does not say "share", the says: "I will not give my glory to another." It means, the glory that belongs to him alone (hence "my glory") will not be given to one other than him. This does not mean that glory cannot be given to others, but it says that the glory that belongs to him will not be given to another. See the difference?

  Reply: Further your saying, I am trying to make it *seem* its saying something its not. Seem? Oh I see, maybe Jehovah meant I wont share my glory in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, I'll spread it around alittle between Christ and the angels. But lets not reveal where you got it.

  Reply: Do you not know basic English? Yes, seem. You make it "seem" to say something that it doesn't, but quoting it out of context. I can do that too. Wanna see? The Bible prohibits art. We cannot have statues of any type. Exodus 20:4 makes this clear.

  Exodus 20:4 You shall not make a graven image for yourself, or any likeness in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth;

  Nothing. Any stature, including those that were even in the temple, is a violation of the law. Thus Solomon, in building the temple broke the law. Right? WRONG. I just took the verse out of context and made it *seem* to mean something that was never intended. In context, Exodus 20:4 has nothing to do with art, but has to do with idols. The graven images within the temple itself were not a violation of this, because in context the text had nothing to do with this type of art.

  You state: By your textual logic of Isaiah 45 we really have to ignore how the text reveals Gods attributes. Or maybe you have a problem with Jehovah stating he's the only true God. Or maybe a textual problem with 45:18 where Gods claims to have created the earth and all its inhabitants, maybe another textual issue with verse 23 that it doesnt really mean all the ends of the earth should look to "him" to be saved. Reply: The issue is the *context*. See, the context is identical to Exodus 20:4, and we just saw what happens when I take that verse out of context. I made it *seem* to have a meaning that it did not. The same thing happens here in Isaiah when you take it out of context. In context, we are dealing with the idols of the nations. For example, in Isaiah 45, look at verses 9 and 16. Or drop back to Isaiah 44 and read verses 9-20. The context is extremely clear. You cannot remove it from this context.

  Mondo
• 
  19

  Who is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?

  by sanjanicole in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am studying about jw, and as i understand it you do not believe in the trinity, how can you not belive in something that the bible says is real, i understand that the word trinity itself is not in the bible, but that does not mean that it does not exist especially since the triune god is talked about in the bible...

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  sanjanicole,

  Your definition of pneuma is simply incorrect. It does not mean angel, superhuman, divine or God. These are not meanings of the word. You seem to be mixing up *application* with meaning.

  Further, I would suggest that you look for a better translation of Phil. 2:6. Any translation that says "thought it not robbery" or uses the word "nature" in the text, is quite simply lacking. These are not accurate translations of the Greek in that verse.

  Mondo
• 
  19

  Who is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?

  by sanjanicole in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am studying about jw, and as i understand it you do not believe in the trinity, how can you not belive in something that the bible says is real, i understand that the word trinity itself is not in the bible, but that does not mean that it does not exist especially since the triune god is talked about in the bible...

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  sanjanicole,

  You wrote:
  --------------------------
  What about Scriptures such as Matthew 3:16 "...and he saw the Spirit of God descending" the greek words here, according to the concordance, mean an angel, or (divine) God, a deity, the Supreme Divinity God - so where do you get that He is just an IT, and in Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne,o God..." again we have the same use of words in Greek, Jesus is depicted as God.-------------------

  It seems that you are looking at a concordance and not a lexicon. The word translated spirit, PNEUMA, does not mean any of those things that you provided. Those are various applications. In other words, those are things that the word is used of, but none of those are what the word means. The basic meaning is breath or wind. It refers to various things beyond that, including one's mental inclination and our very life force. For Hebrews 1:8, remember that this is a quote from Psa. 45:6, originally addressed to the Jewish king. It is no problem to use the word "god", QEOS, for others. It carries with it various senses, outside of the one Almighty God. Hence the angels of Psa. 8:5 are called gods, and so are the judges of Israel in Psa. 82:6.

  Mondo