Posts by jonathan dough

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

It seems that the Wt article that DD posted says that Jesus was Human, before that he was a spirit being whos life force was transferred into Mary an dthen after his death he became a spirt being again, yes?

REPLY: That's the way I read it. First an angel, then a man, then a super-angel - heretic modalism - which the church condemned centuries ago. Transferring his life force doesn't make him 2 persons. It is basic jw doctrine that Jesus was a man, nothing less and nothing more. One person, not two. I'm not a fan of the JWs, far from it, but if the man is the first person, identify the second, or more specifically, point to where they actually teach that.

The JW Jesus is not two persons any more than the trinitarian hypostic Christ is two persons, at least that is what Christianity teaches. Take it up with the Pope and Billy Graham if anyone disagrees. Jesus was one person, one divine person who assumed a human nature just as the quotes above indicate. Now if you are saying the "transferred life force" is the equivalent of the God of the God-man, and that it is the spirit of Michael the Angel so that Jesus was an angel-man instead of a God-man, your left with the problem that the JWs teach that Jesus was nothing more or less than a man. Tough to get around that one, but the beauty of that is that it completely and utterly destroys their theories because they must reconcile all of the evidence that Jesus was, and is, God. And they can't do that to save their lives. Their burden of proof is insurmountable.

Not that I agree with the JWs. They are wrong about everything and give me the shivers, but I would suggest something stronger than a transferred life force, preferably a concession on their part in writing that Jesus was in fact "2 persons" though I doubt you will find it. I think DD is trying to force the second person onto their theories.

If you really want to beat these people, don't reinvent the wheel. Trinitarians whipped them centuries ago. They have a very strong case. It starts with the fact that Jesus was, and is, God. Nail that down and the rest falls into place because Jesus could not have been a created angel, and much more.

JD II

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

DD said:

Spike

You can find it right here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm

Jesus a Separate Creation

WHILE on earth, Jesus was a human, although a perfect one because it was God who transferred the life-force of Jesus to the womb of Mary. (Matthew 1:18-25) But that is not how he began. He himself declared that he had "descended from heaven." (John 3:13) So it was only natural that he would later say to his followers: "What if you should see the Son of man [Jesus] ascend to where he was before?"—John 6:62, NJB.

Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation.

RESPONSE: Nowhere in that quote does it say Jesus was 2 persons. No where. You can't even read into that.

JD II

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

Anybody, where in the Watchtower literature does it say that their Jesus is two persons? A quote, please.

They teach Jesus was a man, nothing more and nothing less (and therefore he can't be an angel).

Where is the second person?

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

DD vexed: As I've said over and over, This thread is NOT about Christian doctrine.

I do not want to see any more long post anout the Trinity.

REPLY: That is a cowardly response. You can't talk about the hypostatic union outside of the context of the trinity. They are intertwined, and if you climbed down off of your self-serving high horse and took the time to read what great minds (not mind) have said about the Trinity and Christ instead of inventing your own theories in a caffeine induced stuppor you might learn something. We're not in kindergarden. All of these issues are locked together. You sound like a JW when you puff up like that. And who are you to be telling people what they can and can't post? You're no better than the cultish censoring elders when you do that. So from what I can tell you aren't a Christian since this isn't about Christian doctrine? What a ridiculous statement. Are you a proponent of Satananism then? Trying to start your own cult? Grow up, Pal. We're not playing checkers. Your distortions are no better than the Society's if they are not the truth. Economic trinity refers to the Hypostic Union that is Christ, for crying out loud. I'll make it easy for you:

http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#2

JD II

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

DD said "To simplify this, think of it this way. One Son in two persons= One life force in Two persons"

REPLY: No disrespect intended because I also am a firm believer in the H. union but which religious denomination teaches "one son in two persons?" Do you have any source material or is this something you came up with on your own because according to basic encyclopedic research, He is not really two persons; that is not what God-man means. Rather, it is one person with a divine and human nature, a divine person who assumed a human nature, not two persons. Just trying to understand you, that's all. Are you saying that mainstream Christianity has got it wrong? Others have said it better than me:

"Our faith in Christ, the God-man, supposes that his humanity is not a human person (the mystery). For if it were, and if there were a duality of persons in Christ, then the Divine Person would not really be man but only united with a man; Christ would not be what our faith says he is.” (ibid., 937)"

http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#5

JD II

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

Reniaa said:

"10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[a] our sins"

"here the bible is clearly saying it is the one that is sent down from God that dies. how does the hypostactic argument address that?"

REPLY: That is not what 1 John 4:10 says at all.

1 John 4:10 is referring to the flesh, the creature who bled on the cross. The preincarnate Word, God the Son, did not bleed on the cross. It was not the flesh who was "sent down." Flesh and blood cannot inhabit the heavenly realms. Galatians 4:4 makes this clear for it says "... God sent forth his son, born of woman ... to redeem those ...." It means that God sent the preincarnate Word, who then became incarnate, becoming a divine person who assumed a human nature, and it was the created humanity (born of woman) that died on the cross, not God the Son of the God-man, who always remained fully God, though with a veiled glory.

The JWs are blatently hypocritical in their analysis because if that were the case (i.e., that it was the preincarnate Sprit the Word the Son that was the sacrifice) then by logical extension it was the spirit "angel Michael" (the same Son, the Word) who was nailed to the cross and died according to JW lore.

But they can't have it both ways because that angel did not exist on earth because they teach that Jesus was "a man, nothing more or less," and therefore he had ceased being an angel, obviously, and it wasn't the preincarnate "angel sent by God" (the son) who died. Therefore, 1 John 4:10 must refer to the creature, the incarnate Word even under their theory. It does not mean that the Spirit God the Son was the sacrifice that bled on the cross.

This makes perfect sense in light of the fact that Jesus said He would resurrect Himself which He could not have done had the God of the God-man died or been vanquished. It also comports with the tremendous weight of proof texts that establish that Jesus was and is God. For more information, go here:
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#22
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20

Just to clarify things, a literal translation of 1 John 4:10 reads: God "... sent His Son to be a propitiation relating to our sins."

JD II

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

Christianity does not teach that the Son is composed of two persons:

“If the pivotal assertion of the New Testament, “The Word was made flesh” (Jn 1.14), means anything, it signifies that two, the divine and the human, became somehow uniquely one in Jesus of Nazareth; that in Him was achieved a union, elsewhere unparalleled of God with man” (ibid., 918).

The Church believes that Jesus Christ is true God, Son of God made man, the Second person of the Trinity, who took unto Himself a human nature and so exists not only in the divine but also in a human nature: one divine Person in two natures. The man who in His earthly life was known as Jesus of Nazareth was not a human person made one, as Nestorius said, in a unique way of moral unity, with the Person of the Son of God. He was God, Son of the Father, made man for men’s salvation. (ibid., 932)

“His human nature, perfect and complete, was not a human person distinct from the Divine person of the Word … it was the human nature of a Divine Person. This point of our faith enwraps the humanity of Christ in full mystery. … His human life included true human knowledge and a human will distinct from the divine will” (ibid., 936).

Our faith in Christ, the God-man, supposes that his humanity is not a human person (the mystery). For if it were, and if there were a duality of persons in Christ, then the Divine Person would not really be man but only united with a man; Christ would not be what our faith says he is.” (ibid., 937)
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#5

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

Spike said: "No, the holy spirit is INDEED a COLLECTIVE person, as John 17:11 clearly shows."

REPLY: You lost me on this one, Spike. What do you mean by "collective person"? Are you saying that you believe the Holy Spirit is the the third Person of the Holy Trinity? Collective in what sense? Person in what sense? I thought you were a JW?

JD II

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

Spike screamed: I am NOT a moderator. And, besides, I used John 17:11 with a "composite third person of the Biblical Trinity". THAT's NOT in any Reasoning™ book!

Jonathan whispered: Calm down, man. I wasn't refering to Jn 17:11 but your reference to the Holy Spirit's alleged lack of a personal name, the JWs argument, which can be found at pg. 407 of the Reasoning book.

"the Jehovah's Witnesses reason that “[t]he Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father - Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit” (Reasoning, 407)."

jd II

332

The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog in

the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.

when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.

one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .

jonathan dough

Spike wrote:

the canned sermons continue DROWNING OUT whatever discussion COULD HAVE taken place or even, perhaps, whatever discussion DID TAKE PLACE

REPLY: I don't know how you can say that given how long this thread is. Skip over the difficult parts if it bothers you. No one is forcing you to read it. By censoring us unnecessarily you are acting just like the Society, but this is not the Society. If I'm wrong, prove it, please. These "canned sermons" are directly on point. These issues are complex and deep, and can't be answered with tweets.

JD II