Littletoe,
If what you claim is true, by all means show me.
Hellrider,
Psalm 8:5 reads "you made him a little lower than the godS." ELOHIM. Hebrews 2 quotes this showing it to be angels.
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.
-
-
-
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
Kenneson,
The matter of what God was not is not my argument, I was responding to that argument.
For the Hebrew, QANAH refers to what is aquired, and one way of aquiring, the way God uses, is creation. Hence the LXX uses KTIZW. Thus, what I said is correct. The proper sense is "created," not "begot." See http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/wisdom
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
On the issue of created you are getting yourself in hot water. How is it possible for an uncreated attribute to become a created person? You have no less of a dilemma than the early Christians dealing with Christ being their Lord and God and having a Father, and there being only One God.
Well this isn't what happened. A created person perfectly displayed the Wisdom of God in both his creation and in who he is, and so he was considered Wisdom as the one that personifies it. The early church had no problem, for the word "God" carries with it more than one sense, and so applying the term to Jesus outside of the "one God" was not a dilemma at all.
There is an order of being/persons known collectively as "God", distinct from spirit angels in the manner that man is distinct from fleshly animals (1.Cor.15:39). Entirely unfounded. Your cited Scripture does not at all support such a conclusion, and in fact it is entirely unrelated. Scripture is clear in that the "one God" is not an "order" but the Father. (1Cor. 8:6)
When we pray to God, Christ intercedes simultaneously from wherever and whenever all of us are - surely this speaks of some form of omnipresence?
Not in the least, for with use of the Holy Spirit, this can all be done from the one place he is, which is next to God's throne.
Since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are evidently able to be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously inhabiting the same space and time, there must be something distinct about this order of beings/persons known as "God" that permits this activity.
Faulty question. See prior answer.
The very nature of the words Father and Son require each other. In what sense was the Father "Father" in the distant depths before time, and yet still retained His unchangableness, if this is not so?
By such an argument, God's nature changed for he was not always creator, for he had not always created. He was not always God for without one to be God over, he could not be God. He was always counted as Father and God within his purpose of doing these things. In his own time he carried out the actions the fulfill that portion of his purpose.
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
Would you care to "disprove" any of the info on the web pages I posted? Please I am dying to know where the horrible scholarship and exegesis is. I challenge you to disprove something on any of those web pages. That shouldn't be too hard for you, should it, seeing that you must be a master of scholarship and an expert at exegesis?
I did not make a personal attack, I made a statement of fact. Scholarship and exegesis are lacking. For an example, from the following link we find this: http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/jesus_god/jesus_is_god.html
Again in Mark 15:39 The centurion said of Jesus. while He was on the cross. "TRULY THIS MAN WAS THE SON OF GOD.' A look at the Greek shows that there is no article before the word "God." But Jesus was not the son of someone who was "god-like." Rather. He is the son of "God.' In this case the rule that applies is the rule that predicate nouns take the article if they follow the verb. And since "God' or 'Theos' precedes the verb, it has no article, just as in John 1:1 above.
Talk about entirely importing something unrelated. God would be the genitive QEOU, it would not be a preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative ala John 1:1c. And yet they use this to "disprove" the translation of "a god" in John 1:1? This is poor scholarship. It is unresearched and it is the use of a wanna-be argument when there is no argument to be made.
Where does the Bible ever say that Christians are not under God's Command to worship Him ALONE? What do you base that claim on? Jesus repeated this Commandment (Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8). Do you also claim that Christians are not under God's Moral Laws, such as "You shall not murder," "You shall not covet," and "You shall not commit adultery"? Are Christians still under those commands or not? If they are, then why are they under those laws, but not under God's Command to worship only Him?
Yes we are under the moral law, but this is not a matter of morality. Do we observe the Sabbath? No! We are not to worship idols, as the NT makes very clear (1Joh. 5:21), but Jesus is not an idol, he is the Son of God. Hebrews 1 presents a command from God to the angels to worship Jesus. God is making the command, so it is to be obeyed.
If Jesus was created by God, then how did Jesus exist before ALL things were created? (Colossians 1:16-18) If Jesus was created by God, then how did God created all things through Jesus? (John 1:3)
Because the adjective PAS is contextually relative. For example, in Hebrews 2:10 if "all things" are subject to Jesus, how come the Father is not? Indeed, in John 1:3, if "all things" are created through Christ, is not the Father created through Jesus too, because it says "all"? No. The exception of the Father is implied, because the Father is not created, and so the exception of the Son is seen because the Son cannot be created through himself. John 1:4, when translated literally from the Greek while properly attaching to the sentence the words hO GEGONEN as the early church did, reads: "What has come to be in him was life and the life was the light of men." Who is "the light of men"? The Messiah! And what? "The life." And what happened to the life? It "came to be." If Jesus is the light of men and the light of men is the life, Jesus came to be! John 1:4 says he was created.
Also, if God created all things through Jesus (as stated in John 1:3), then how did God also create all things ALONE, BY HIMSELF? (Isaiah 44:24)
Which in context is dealing with God vs. idols. Of course all things originate with God and so he does it "by himself," but doing it by himself does not stop him from making use of his own creation. God made use of his own creation to create many things, including gravity, various gasses, etc. Even with the creation of man he used dirt and water. To say God made use of his own creation does not contradict the verse, but if somebody or thing that wasn't his creation was involved, that indeed would contradict it.
If a person in the first century had wanted to write God's Name/Title "I AM" from Exodus 3:14 in Greek, how would it have been written?
Some form of esomai or egw eimi ho wn. Take a look at Acts 3:13, you'll find it alludes back to Exodus 3:15, and we see that the speaker there (and thus also in 14) was not Jesus at all, but it was the Father.
If Jesus simply meant that He existed before Abraham in John 8:58, then why did the Jews try to stone Him for blasphemy? It was not against Jewish law to claim to be an angel was it? It was only against Jewish law to claim to be God or equal to God. So, no matter what you claim Jesus was saying in John 8:58, the Jews clearly understood that He was using the Divine Name "I AM" found in Exodus 3:14.
It was blasphemy to claim to take authority from God for yourself when God did not grant it to you, which is what Jesus was doing. He was claiming, in their eyes, to have stolen an existence that lasted for roughly 2000 years, something that no man is capable of without the authority from God to do so. As he didn't have it, in their eyes, and he was claiming it, he was deserving of stoning. The grammar in John 8:58 simply does not allow for a connection to Exodus 3:14. To make such a leap is entirely unwarranted and cannot stand up under examination.
Also, let's say, for the sake of argument, you are right about John 8:24, and Jesus was actually saying "I Am He." (Compare with Isaiah 43:10) What is your interpretation of that? What did Jesus mean? It was obviously a very serious matter. Jesus said that they were all going to "die in their sins" if they did "not believe that I AM [He]."
Isaiah 43:10 does not use the words in any special sense. God uses ANI HU in a rather normal way, where the pronoun HU refers back to an antecedent. Similarly, John 8:24 takes us back several verses to where Jesus claimed to be "the light of the world."
Also, "I AM HE" was a title/name of YHWH in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:39, Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, 43:13, 46:4, 48:12, 51:12, 52:6)
No, it is not. It is a regular use of language that is not at all unique. Keeping them in context there is nothing special or unusual about any one of these texts. You may want to consider this article to see how none of those texts contain any idea of a "name."
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
UnDisfellowshipped,
The words I am, in Greek, EGW EIMI, are nothing special and are not a claim to deity. In fact, John 8:24 and 58 use those two words in completely different ways within the sentences. 8:24's use compares to John 9:9 where the blind man used the words also with an implied predicate, while 58 uses eimi in the sense of "exist."
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
Kenneson,
The word does not mean that. To verify that, I consulted BDAG, Thayer, Friberg and Liddell and Scott, none of which supply "begot." You are dealing with an a different word here, not what Proverbs 8:22 states. Prov. 8:22 uses KTIZW, you are looking for GENNAW (to beget).
Verse 23 is not refering to "eternity," but "ancient times." For example, the New Revised Standard Version states: "Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth." To say eternity contradicts verses 22 and 24-25.
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
Kenneson,
The text specifically says "created" and so, that in itself must rule out it speaking of the attribute, per your argument. Because the attribute is uncreated, whatever "wisdom" is there spoken of must not be that attribute. Why would the person though need to be uncreated, especially when the person says she is created? That would not make much sense! To personify an attribute merely means that your activities and characteristics show forth the attribute. It has nothing to do with length of existence.
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
This is clearly not the same as calling the prophets and lawmakers "gods". If you believe that, then there is no point in having this discussion.
No, Jesus is much higher than these, but still not the Almighty.
Some did, but not all. And even if they did, this doesn`t mean that they emphasised the "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works"-part (and even if they did, "the first of his works" doesn`t necessarily mean "creation", not in the mysticism that was early christianity), perhaps they read more into the 23rd verse:" I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began". Who knows.
The word is "Created." In Greek it is EKTISEN. -
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,
The problem is you are too dependant upon English translations, and so you see "God" and you think ontologically the same God as the Father, which is simply false. The early church held to a chiefly subordanist view, with the Son as a second god. According to the early church, Jesus was created, for they quoted Proverbs 8:22 of Christ. Later ones such as Athanasius had to completely reinterpret this text to make it fit the Trinitarian theology, coming up with a view of the text that had absolutely nothing to do with what was actually said.
For the prologue of John, nothing says Jesus is eternal. If you want to argue from the imperfect HN, you need to go back to the drawing board.
Mondo