isn''t funny the comments AE's made regarding Ray, and the propaganda in the Dub world about Ray that he must be some sort of Demon possessed Apostate who wanted to; a) plot the fall of the WTS,b) start his own religious corporation,c) left to pursue an immoral life style, all wrong of course , aren't they stupid,pathetic,sick sad people?
Angel Eye needs an education on the identity and nature of Christ
by jonathan dough 115 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
angel eyes
??????????
-
yknot
Here is a link to Doug Mason's recent thread about online excerpts for the forum to consider
-
jonathan dough
AE said:
Matt 26v39..Jesus talks to God saying "If it is possible let this cup pass from me".... are you saying he was talking to himself??
No. It was Jesus the created humanity, the creature, who was not the Almighty who made this statement, the one who bled on the cross, the man of the God-man equation of the hypostatic union. "The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that “The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922). For this same reason He could also claim that The Father was greater than he was. No contradiction here.
John 8v17,18 "Jesus says the farther who sent him"....
The oneness or unity and threeness are not the same. The Person of the Word, that which was sent, is defined as a relationship among other things. It does not negate the essence or nature of God. To wit:
The divine person of Christ, even if sent by God the Father, and even if He voluntarily subjected Himself, did not in so doing become less equal to God with respect to His essential being, nature and essence. When the Word assumed a human nature he did not cease being God, but willingly assumed a different relationship; a different grade, order or manifestation as Tertullian theorized. His incarnation and obedience did not diminish the divine essence of His being or make Him less consubstantial. The divine Person of Jesus was still fully God, who chose a veiled glory.
Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. (Strong and Vine’s, 42)
-
isaacaustin
check your pm, I emailed you a cliffnote version of his book i once found online.....
-
jonathan dough
Before Col 1v15 the firstborn is mentioned 30times,, the firstborn of Israel is one of the sons of Israel. The firstborn of Pharoah is one of Pharoahs family.Jesus was Gods first born.
You are quoting from a gross distortion in the Reasoning book. This is a play on words. It begs the question of whether the Word was a creature in the first place.
The Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously teach that “Having been created by God, Jesus is in a secondary position in time, power, and knowledge. Jesus, in his pre-human existence, was “the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15 NJB)” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6), the first created thing.
They apply “first-born” (Greek protokos) narrowly and limit it to human procreation. Like a man fathering a son, Jesus, they claim, was the first creature born, or fathered, by God; a created subordinate being and therefore not eternal.
The Jehovah's Witnesses base this argument on prior usage of the phrase “first-born (of)” in the context of then-living creatures which they claim always belonged to a group of some kind, and therefore Jesus belonged to the group of all created things. They write:
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures, the same meaning applies - the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; the “firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; the “firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What then causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? (Reasoning, 408) (emphasis added)
The manner in which they phrase the issue assumes the Word is a creature, writing: each time the expression “first born of” occurs, in each such instance that it is applied to creatures the same meaning applies, that the first born is part of a group.” But this is a mere play on words and begs the question whether Christ was a creature in the first place? The issue, rather, revolves around the definition of “first born” or “first born of” creation and how that is applied before its use at Colossians 1:15 and afterward, whether or not it was applied to creatures. For example:
“First born of” is not limited to a group of creatures but is used in the Old Testament figuratively for disease or plague (NAB notes Job 18:13). The “first-born of death consumes his limbs” (NAB Job 18:13).
Isaiah 14:30 illustrates the figurative use of “the firstborn of.” It states: “And the firstborn of the poor shall eat; and the needy shall lie down in safety” (Green’s Literal Translation). These verses emphasize the poorest of the poor. It does not state, nor can it be implied, that only those people who were the procreative firstborn of each family who happened to be poor would eat, and their poor siblings would starve. It does not carve out one group of first-born poor from the rest of the poor, but it identifies those hungering poor in general, the neediest of the needy.
The term “first-born” (son) (Hebrew bkowr ) was used at Exodus 4:22 to refer to all of Israel as a group, not part of a group, and that relationship was not the result of physical procreation because they already existed. Rather, it was a spiritual and religious relationship; Israel was God’s Son.
(7) Israel was God’s “first-born”; it enjoyed a privileged position and blessings over all other nations (Ex 4:22; Jer 31:19). (Strong and Vine’s, 39)
At Deuteronomy 21:16, 17 “first-born” (Hebrew bkowr) also has the meaning of superiority of position, not the first created male child.
[T]hen on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born, but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
Here, the son of one wife who is not the mother of the actual first-born son should not be treated as such with respect to disposition of her husband’s inheritance (ibid.).
As you can see, “first-born” or “first-born of” is not limited to a member of a group of creatures but has broad application. According to Strong and Vine’s, “firstborn” (Greek protokos) with reference to the preexistent Christ is used “of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17)” (ibid., 218).
(Prototokos) Firstborn is used (1) of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7), (2) of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17). (3) Chronologically, the four passages relating to Christ as firstborn, first begotten, may be set forth thusly: (3a) Col 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as v. 16 makes clear); (3b) Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5, in reference to His resurrection; (3c) Rom 8:29, His being firstborn among those living by faith alone in God the Father; (3d) Heb 1:6, first begotten, stresses His superior position, His preeminence over all; His second advent in contrast to His first advent, at His birth, being implied. (Strong and Vine’s, 218)
As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their interpretation of “first-born” at Colossians 1:15, 16, and Trinitarian Christians are correct in saying “that the ‘first-born’ here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished. Thus, Christ could be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those whom he created,” (Reasoning, 408). This is particularly true in light of the unequivocal language of Colossians 1:17 which says “He is before all things” (RSV).
-
jonathan dough
AE wrote:
In Mark 13 he speaks of that day and hour no one knows not even the son or angels in the heavens...If Jesus was God he would know,it doesnt make any sense that Jesus would be God for he clearly doesnt even know the hour yet Jehovah does.
Jesus’ ignorance of the Last Day - Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge which is inexpressible in human concepts, not His infused knowledge. But did the Holy Spirit know the day and hour of the Last Day?
At Mark 13:32 Jesus stated “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” “Son” in this context does not refer to the “God” of the God-man Jesus but the man and His human knowledge. St. Augustine offered a solution to the question of Christ’s limited knowledge that today is universally accepted, namely, that “Christ had no communicable knowledge of the Last Day because it did not pertain to His mission to reveal it.” “[One] could say that Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge, not in His infused knowledge” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 939) (emphasis added).
Augustine said this in the context of the question about human infirmities taken on by Christ; his solution here too has prevailed: Christ took all of these infirmities, except ignorance, which is not only a consequence but also a principle of sin. (ibid.)
Roch A. Kereszty explains “The Word has known man and the fullness of human experience from all eternity through his divine knowledge. But in the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine “status,” renounces, it seems, the direct use of his divine consciousness and knowledge, and becomes aware of himself as man and learns as man gradually about God, himself, people and the world. He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (Fundamentals of Christology, 317).
There are also practical considerations regarding Christ’s limited knowledge of the Last Day. Not only was it not necessary in order to fulfill His mission, but mankind’s awareness of the exact day and hour has the propensity for unrepentant man, subject to death at any moment, to put off repentance and salvation until the last possible minute. This would countermand Christ’s command to be constantly vigilant (Matthew 25: 1-13).
The Jehovah's Witnesses contend further that even if, “as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?” (Reasoning, 409). The answer is that the Holy Spirit did know because He is one of the Hypostases or Persons of the Holy Trinity. Remember, usually “Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God” (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54). God is by nature triune and one of those Persons is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Jesus stated that only the Father knows exactly when the Last Day shall be, his reference to the Father, the triune God, by definition included the Person of the Holy Spirit.
-
jookbeard
JD, I think you are talking to the hand
-
jonathan dough
AE said: John 8v17,18 "Jesus says the farther who sent him"....
By analogy, in some culture, and in some contemporary matrimonial roles, the wife voluntarily assumes a particular subservient role. But just because a husband sends his wife down to the corner market for some milk, or the husband has the final decision with respect to, say, financial matters, that does not make his wife inferior to him as a person any more than the President of the United States is superior, as a human being, to any citizen of the United States of America. Your employer is not a superior individual, either, but only exercises authority over you. So just because the Word was sent does not alter his essential consubstantial nature.
-
angel eyes
to agree to disagree.....im going for dinner now...yes your all say shes not answering blah blah but i am married and would like to spend sometime with my lovely hubby and have some dinner together......then tomorrow night is family study night.....