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

  Kenneson,

  I would mostly agree with you. The word did not simply "take flesh" though, John 1:14 says the word "became flesh." So yes, the Word did change, because the Word became something that it was not.
• 
  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 Bible never articulates the mind as something that lives on after death. In fact, it teaches exactly the opposite of that. As for the spirit body that he had, likely it in itself changed so that it was no longer what it was, but it became wholly flesh. That is speculative though, for again, the Bible doesn't say.
• 
  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,

  My statement was in regard to Jesus' existence in heaven. Jesus did not exist in heaven as flesh.
• 
  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

  While he claimed ( while on earth ) to do nothing of his own initiative, at what point does he ever state that he borrows the Father's power?

  I beleive Hebrews 1:2 articulates this quite clearly, stating that Jesus upholds all things by the word of his (the Father's) power. (follow back in the context.. his glory (the Father's) and his being (the Father's)). Further, as a created being, anything Jesus had in terms of power would have to be sourced in the Father, for there is no power than does not originate with God in some way.

  Aside from that you already accepted that the Word made all things, so surely Isa.44:24 contradicts that if you believe that Isaiah is only refering to the Father?

  I fail to see how such is true. Hebrews 1:1-2 demands that it be a reference to the Father though.

  I'm not particularly trying to be controversial, here. I'm just trying to find some consistency in your statements, but thusfar it eludes me. Please be assured that it isn't from a lack of knowledge of the WTS position and the frame of words you are using, as I was an Elder for years. It's simply because I no longer find internal consistency in the WTS theology. It has more holes in it than a sieve.

  Hopefully you can see by now that I am not one to hold to something because the WT says it. In fact, I disagree with them on a number of details in these things.

  I'll grant you that the Trinity doctrine isn't without it's issues, but IMHO it makes more sense of more of the texts. But even stepping back from that, there are no holes at all in the simple acceptance of the deity of Christ ( with or without the Trinity doctrine ), especially if you apply the name YHWH to him and assume that he grew up.

  Please do not misunderstand. I fully accept the deity of Christ. I believe this is spelled out in several places, such as Colossians 2:9. I simply recognize that his deity does not originate in himself as the Almighty God, but he has been given it by the Father. (Col. 1:19)
• 
  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

  Kenneson,

  We are not told what happened to it. We are told he became something different, which was flesh. We don't need to know how it happened, we only need to know that it did happen, and John 1:14 tells us that it did, but not how it did.
• 
  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

  Well the word soul is sometimes used to refer to the mind, so in a sense, it is the soul, but it is not some immaterial thing that departs from the body to live on.
• 
  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

  You rather hit the nail on the head. Jesus was more than these things, and yet all were God's creation, and so if he could make use of these lesser things, he could certainly make use of Jesus, a greater creation.
• 
  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

  Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of non-living things.
• 
  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

  Littletoe,

  Anything Jesus does it done with God's power, so it does not originate in himself, while it does originate in God, and hence Isaiah 44:24.
• 
  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

  MJ,

  In John 5:30 Jesus said: "I do nothing by himself." So the God of Isaiah who does it by himself can't be Jesus. The fact is that God made use of his own creation to further create. It all was attributed back to God, for he used what he himself made. In context, the point is that there were no other gods like himself who did this. It does not rule out the use of his own creation (gravity, gasses, etc) in creating these things, and so it does not rule out the use of Jesus either.

  Mondo