Context is the key. In Genesis 1-2 we have an established context within which elohim is used. There is no basis for arguing that elohim refers to one other than whom it contextually refers to, so I have to reject this idea. So contextually, I cannot see how one could conclude that without a theological pressuposition. Of course I will grant such if you can provide a contextual indicator for such a change, but I have not come across one.
Mondo1
JoinedPosts by Mondo1
-
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.
-
-
-
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 didn't say that.
-
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
Littletoe,
The issue is that they assumed something. Never assume. :)
I would argue that Jesus was an angel of sorts, for an angel is merely a messenger and he was undoubtedly "the angel of the convenant" spoken of in Mal. 3:1.
-
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
If the agency principle were to apply here, then we might say the Logos did it, but I cannot find any reason to here apply that, and as such, and as the one performing the action is specifically defined, I have to say that the Logos did not do it, but the one defined did. I have to deal with what the text says, not a loose interpretation.
-
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 fact that there were pagan god-men has little to do with the God of the Jews and their rejection of such pagan deities.
The NT was not written by Greeks, it was written by Jews.
You err because you attempt to classify "God" as a job, comparing it to a carpenter. It is not a job, it is a position, and one does not hold that position, and more specifically, exist as a person of a single being, because one is born of another. You want to accept that Jesus is God's Son, but not accept all that is included with that thought, which is that he was produced from the Father and quite truly came to be in existence... thus meaning he is not eternal.
I know the history and the background quite well, but obviously you wish to project your own insufficient understanding of the issues on to me. Quite clearly, you have little or no grasp of the principle of agency and how it necessarily applies to the interpretation of Scripture.
-
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
Does this mean more than one, or only one?
Interesting question. One must understand how those in the first century understood the words "one something." For example, the NT teaches that Jesus is our "one Lord" and yet the apostle John in Revelation 7:14 had no problem addressing one of the 24 elders as his Lord. Further, in John 8, the Jews state "we have one Father, God" and yet only 2 verses prior they stated: "Abraham is our Father." If they have one Father who is God and Abraham is their Father, is Abraham God? No. The point is that the expression "one something" didn't necessarily mean that exclusively, but that completely.
There are many gods and many lords, but they are false ones.
Scripture would beg to differ. The Bible speaks of the false gods as "so-called gods" while there are many real gods, such as the angels.
Mondo
-
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
Auldsoul,
My argument was based upon the Biblical text. You want to expand it well outside the Bible, which has nothing to do with my argument based upon the Bible. Trinitarians want to interpret various texts in light of their preconcieved polypersonal god, to prove that he is polypersonal. This is circular.
As for me, I consider myself a monotheist. Some might call me a Henotheist, but I am certainly no more such than those at Qumran.
-
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
Hellrider,
If we want to understand the Bible, we must understand how those that were alive when it was wrote would look at it. I've attempted to give you a bit of insight into how they thought and how they wrote. You can call it explaining away, but it is hardly that. It is simply a fact that they looked at things as I put forth. Obviously this is not my thing or a JW thing, for I have given you a couple of sources that clearly speak of what I have put forth, and there are plenty of other sources as well.
-
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
As I mentioned, the semantic range of "make" is wider than "create." It says "let us make," because "make" would include the thought of "create," but it would also include a wider range of meaning as well, and so it is appropriate. It seems "make" may be used here because of how it is said that he did it per verse 24.
-
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
It is quite simple. Revelation 4:11 is direct address, Revelation 5:13 is not. Prayer is direct address. As Revelation 5:13 is not direct address, it is not prayer.