Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible

Mondo1

BelieverInJesus,
---------------------------
Yes, please explain your logic on Rev 22-12-16. How do you get that it jumps from father to son? It's clear to me, that it's Jesus speaking throughout these verses.
-----------------------
There are several points we could note, but here are two. 1) The use of a personal pronoun, proper name, appears three times in the book of Revelation. Once in 1:9, once in 22:8 and once in 22:16. Both other times it denotes a speaker change. It would be natural for it to mean such in 22:16 as well. 2) Revelation 22:12 is a quote from Isaiah 40:10, which speaks of the Father and his arm ruling for him, who is the Messiah himself. (Isa. 53:1) The quoted text is dealing with the Father, giving strong indication that the speaker is the Father.
------------------------------
So here on earth Nebuchadnezzer was referred to as king of kings. But Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world."
--------------------------
When God identified Nebuchadnezzar as "king of kings," he did not say: "You are the king of kings of earthly kings." The qualifier you are adding... you are adding.
---------------------------------
Pet's is NON-specific. Cat's and Dog's are more-specific. If I refer to my dog I say "the 3 year old miniture dachsund named Luigi Francesco. Which is highly specific. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Is VERY specific.
-----------------
No, it really isn't very specific at all. He is that in what way? When Jesus is identified as the first and the last, it is with reference to the resurrection. Jesus makes this clear in Revelation 1 and 2, for both times he identifies himself as the first and the last, it is not a bare statement, but he is such as the one "who became dead and is alive forevermore." With God, he is the first and the last in the existence of all things. It means that God is the first to exist and he will exist for all eternity. With Jesus, he is the first to be raised to immortality (Rev. 1:5), and being immortal he will exist for all eternity.
-------------------------
Look at verse 12...who is "coming quickly"? Look down at verse 20 ""...Yes, I am coming quickly" Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
-----------------------
Nobody denies that Jesus is coming, but that doesn't mean the Father isn't in some way also. Not only does Isaiah 40:10 speak of it, but in a parable, Jesus spoke of it as well. See Mark 12:6-9. There Jesus is represented by the Son and God is represented by the owner of the Vineyard.
Mondo
Deputy Dog

Mondo
Here is where we see you getting upset. Where did I say Trinitarians believed that? I didn't. I am quite aware of what Trinitarians do and do not believe, but for all I know, you are a Sebellian.
I'm sorry. Pease, tell us what Trinitarians believe about Jesus. And no I'm not a modalist
------------------------------------
Mondo, when are you going to bow the knee?
------------------------
I already do. When are you going to get a better translation? Yours really messes up 6b and 7a. Try the NASB.
Wow, a JW that Worships Jesus! I'm telling the Tower on you.
Heres a better translation for ya.

Phi 2:6
Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. 7 Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance.
lovelylil

Hi everyone. I am following the rest of this debate with much interest. Not that it matters if we believe in the trinity or not. The bible does not make it clear that this belief is essential for our salvation.
Mondo
I agree with most of your points except this one. I used to teach that the "Wisdom" mentioned in Proverbs 8 was Jesus too. Why? Because the WT said so and while reading some select verses in proverbs 8 - out of context, and knowing Jesus had a pre-human existance, it seemed to make sense at the time.
When I left the tower, I began to research this teaching on my own. I have now come to see that this could not refer to Jesus. The main reason is that "Wisdom" is a "her" and "she" and not "him" or "he". See Proverbs chapter 9:1-18. Here the quality "wisdom" is being personified. Notice to that wisdom is said to dwell with prudence Proverbs 8:12.
If you think about it what is a proverb? A wise saying or adage. So we should not take anything written in this book as literal. Lilly
Mondo1

ellderwho,
Perhaps you should start exegeting those passages, because none of these are helping you.
------------------------------------
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man is destined to come in the gloryl of his Father with his angels, and then he will recompense each one according to his behavior.
Mar 8:38 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when he arrives in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
----------------------
Luke 9:26 also speaks of Jesus coming "in the glory... of the holy angels." To come in the glory of them does not mean that he possess their glory or that they share it somehow.
--------------------------------
Joh 17:22 Also, I have given them the glorythat you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one.
--------------------
How does this help you? If God giving glory to Jesus makes Jesus God, Jesus giving glory to his disciples makes his disciples God.
--------------------
Heb 1:3 He is the reflection of[his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.------------------------
Can't see how this one helps you either. He still doesn't possess God's glory. He doesn't have it shared with him. He reflects it or radiates it. It is not a glory that becomes Jesus' or that God is sharing with Jesus. It is still God's.
----------------------------
From your response, the onus, my friend is upon you to explain a seperate "glory" for Christ.
-----------------------
Gladly. Luke 9:26 does it. You have two options. Either God, Jesus and the angels all share one glory, or they all have a unique glory. Based upon that text it is one or the other, you cannot have it one way for God and Jesus and another for them and the angels, for the syntax is the same for all three. Either way you want to look at it, this one pretty well shootts the Trinitarian doctrine in the butt.
-----------------------------------
Same here, you arbitrarily create a scenerio unique to your own perspective without scriptual backing.
-----------------------
Actually I'm just taking what the text says for what it says. It speaks of the glory that God had with Jesus. If a person is with another, and one has glory and the other has glory, there is nothing that says they are sharing glory. It is absolute eisegesis to say that they are sharing it.
-------------------------------
Your argument is still with scripture. Judges has nothing to do with what Jehovah directly states, as he is desribing his attributes.
-------------------------
No, my argument is with you taking that text out of context. What does a text dealing with idols have to do with Jesus???? Nothing! You are abusing God's word, and I can confidently say that it is something he does not take kindly to. Ehud is directly said to be a savior. So either this is a contradiction, or you are taking this text out of context. I will go with the latter.
--------------------------------
Im sure you would say the same of Isaiah 45:5. Because it directly clashes with your Jo.1:1
Isa 45:5 I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God. I shall closely gird you, although you have not known me
------------------------
I will again note that you are taking the text out of context. It is a text dealing with idols. I suggest you start reading in Isaiah 40 and establish yourself the context of what is being discussed. Why are you so determined to take these passages out of context???
Mondo
Mondo1

Deputy Dog,
Trinitarians believe that God is one being, with three co-equal, co-eternal persons. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son not the Holy Spirit, etc.
And your new translation is even more sickening than the first. Why don't you get something that is a bit more literal. This most recent one is nothing short of a paraphrase.
Mondo
Mondo1

lovelylil,
I have to disagree. Instead of trying to explain it all here, let me refer you to an article on the subject: Jesus Christ - Wisdom Personified.
Mondo
ellderwho

ellderwho,
You quote Phil. 2:6 as follows:
Phi 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
This is a good translation, but it says exactly the opposite of what you want. He existed EN MORFH TOU QEOU, but what did he not do? He did not attempt to hARPAGMOS (grasp for, violently attempt to sieze or rape) equality with God. You cannot do this to something you already have.
Mondo
You state "He did not attempt" where does the word "attempt" come from, within the text? So what your really saying is, his attempting not to be equal was not something to be grasped?
Deputy Dog

lovelylil
The bible does not make it clear that this belief is essential for our salvation.
It's clear to me

Act 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Act 4:11
This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Act 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
lovelylil

Mondo,
Thanks for the link. I saved it on my favorites and will read it later. Its always good to get another view on things. Sometimes it can even change your perspective. Lilly
Mondo1

ellderwho,
I used "attempt" because nobody can successfully take for themselves equality with God. What I'm saying is that he was already EN MORFH QEOU but in that MORFH he could either grasp for equality with God or not do it. If he did do it, it would only be an attempt, for nobody can successfully take equality with God for themselves. But he didn't do that. hUPARCWN is concessive, so although he was already in that form, he did not grasp for equality with God. He did not intend to "rape" it from God.
Mondo

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

Share this