Slim,
Good point. While it is not the proper rendering, what it shows at the very least is that the early church, in some parts, understood the title related to the resurrection.
Mondo
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
hO WN is not simply a claim to deity, but as with many Trinitarian grammatical claims, the same is used for the crowd in John 12:17.
Mondo
-
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
Hellrider,
Now you have misrepresented the text. It is not "the sentences... that follows" that shows the sense of his being the first and the last, it is the very same sentence! It is what is included within the very same sentence. Look closely at Revelation 1:17-18 and 2:8 to see this on both occasions. If Jesus did not lable himself this way twice it would not be as significanct, but the fact that he only does it this way is.
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
ellderwho,
Do you have a point anymore? You seemed to have lost one if you ever had it.
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
Hellrider,
I see you have now modified your argument from what the author is saying though really didn't say to what the argument rests upon. The strawman remains, because it continues to be a misrepresentation of the argument. In no way does the argument "rest upon the halt in Jesus` existence," as you falsely claim. It rests upon the fact that Jesus is not called this until after his resurrection and that Jesus only calls himself it when refering to his resurrection.
You have made it abundantly clear that you cannot simply deal with the argument itself. You must imply that the author meant something he didn't mean or that the argument rests upon a point that is not even made! This is the only way for you to deal with the text it seems.
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
hellrider,
Your argument is an absolute strawman. If you don't believe what I am saying, email them yourself and I'm sure he will reply. The text does not state or do anything to imply the argument you are making, but it actually lays out a very specific argument, which you have not even attempted to address. It does not suprise me that you did lay out a strawman at this point either, because the points that are made you have clearly not been able to answer. You have not done anything with the view presented on the speaker change in 22:16, you have not touched anything further on 22:12 in relation to Isaiah 40:10 since I responded to your one remark and you have not done anything with the actual argument made on 1:17. You have built a strawman and knocked it down. Be sure to give yourself a pat on the back.
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
Hellrider,
Bad news for you. I know the writer extremely well and I asked if that is what he meant. Guess what he said. Nope! Sorry pal, but you have built an absolute strawman.
For the meaning of it when applied to Jesus, see the article.
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
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 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
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 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
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