Mondo1

Joined

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

Posts by Mondo1

• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  Again, I still need you to define your terms, because I don't know if you mean his substance of his life force.
• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  DD,

  Those are roles and functions, not natures.

  Nothing "possessed" Jesus' body, Jesus was Jesus.
• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  If you are 100% something, that is all you are, for there is only 100% of you. If something is 100% wood, it is all wood. If something is 100% metal, it is all metal.
• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  It depends on what you mean by spirit.
• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  ROTFL. The demons POSSESSED the swine, they were not the swine themselves. LOL Wow some desperate arguments from you folks.
• 
  137

  New World Translation Brackets!!

  by gold_morning in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  I thought I would point out the following from the Anchor Bible Commentary:

  "If one follows Gaechter’s order, the concluding words of Revelation (22:10-13) are spoken by the One who sits upon the Throne, rather than by the interpreting angel; cf. 22:8-10… It echoes Isa 40:10; Pss 28:4; 62:12; Jer 17:10, all of which refer to God as the One who brings recompense for the good or bad. Such reattribution could be seen in the fall of the Holy City. Vs. 13 proves that the preceding statements do come from the mouth of God."
• 
  137

  New World Translation Brackets!!

  by gold_morning in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  John speaks to his audience. He is directing his words to those reading the text. No, he is not talking to anybody in the text, but the point is that he shows that it is not longer the one that was just speaking saying these things, but he himself. I would not agree, especially in 22:8, that John is merely closing up. Even if he were, it was already established in verse 1 that it is John to whom the Revelation is being given, so to say that he is merely identifying himself is rather superfluous. 22:8 presents a clear interjection on the part of John, and he uses his name to make this known. 22:7 presents the angel speaking, in response to which John states that he was hearing it and he fell down to worship. The angel the replies. As John identifies the speaker change to himself, he tells us also that the angel made a reply to him in verse 9. See, your argument falls rather flat, because 22:7 continues in 22:8-11. It doesn't stop with John's statement in verse 8 as you argue. I would again argue that "his slaves" are God's slaves, not Jesus'. We have QEOS... AUTWi... AUTOU. AUTOU refers back to QEOS, not AUTWi.
• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  I don't have a %. What we are told from Scripture is that he "became flesh" and that he "emptied himself" so that he was no longer what he was, but he was something else. The WHO remained the same, the WHAT changed.
• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  Leolaia,

  For this next portion of my response, I'm merely going to quote from the source you mentioned, Fekkes, on the use of the title "the first and the last" for Jesus Christ. I believe the reference sufficiently responds on the issue, and though I am not 100% in agreement with all of the points made, my simple point is to show the validity of not taking the title in the sense used for God within Isaiah, but with a connection to his resurrection.

  First on Revelation 1:17-18:
  "In what way, then, is Christ here the First and the Last? What is the basis for his authority? Among commentators, two views appear most prominent. One group understands the designation as an expression of Christ's eternity, which underlies his authority as the Lord of all history. The other group connects the title with the event of Christ's resurrection and subsequent enthronement, which authenticated his past existence, confirmed his divine authority, and established him as God's agent of salvation and judgment."

  "The first view is based on the assumption that all three double titles, whether applies to God or Christ, have exactly the same force. Yet this overlooks the fact that first and last is reserved for Christ alone. Not only is it associated with the resurrection explicitly in two of its three uses (1.17-18; 2.8), but John relates Christ's 'firstness' specifically to the resurrection when it 1.5 he calls him the 'firstborn from the dead'. In addition, he repeatedly gives evidence that Christ's victory over death is the basis of his authority over the church and the world. It appears then the second view best accords with the immediate context and John's overall perspective."

  On Revelation 2:8-
  "It is surely significant that John here does not merely take over the first and last designation from 1.17, but retains its connection with the resurrection."
• 
  239

  Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

  by Hellrider in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mondo1

  The problem with the dual nature hypothesis is that it is contradictory to say that one person is 100% two things. One could be part one thing and part another, but not 100% of two completely different things.