Will you stop acting so immature please?
Your sarcasm is rather unbecoming.
We're all big boys here. You'd better get some thicker skin while pushing unfounded Wt doctrine.
ellderwho
JoinedPosts by ellderwho
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
I ask for terms to be defined because Biblically, these terms can mean different things.
Your theology is based upon the Wt.
You state: He emptied himself of that nature. He was no longer spirit, he took on flesh by coming to be in the womb of Mary.
Therefore, the terms I give you are the Wt terms. Life force from what you speak of is by Wt definition (pg.82 Knowledge book) "life force" is only the breath of man which keeps him alive an does not have any of the characteristics of the creature it animates.
Mondo1: So essentially his mind, his consciousness. Instead of residing in spirit, it came to reside in flesh.
Since spirit beings do not have physical bodies, then they do not have lungs and the need to breath. Further, since you claim nothing of Sons spirit body came down and dwelt in the human body, was the Son still existing in heaven?
With this in mind dont forget what the Knowledge book says on page 109:
"wicked angels took on fleshly bodies." These angels, in bodily form, had relations with women, and children were born. But when the flood came these "rebellious angels escaped destruction by dematerializing their fleshly bodies and returning to the spiritual realm."
Apparently the Wt teaches that it is possible for spirit beings themselves to indwell humans without ceasing to exist or giving up their identity.
Then why I ask you would it be impossible for the Son to come down and dwell in a fleshly body? Isnt that more reasonable then implying that God transferred his life into Mary, while trying to maintain that nothing really came down?
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
separate his prehuman life force and his substance , in effect taking dualism to the spiritual plane? The wt does that, and it cannot define it's terms.
Yeah, funny, neither can Mondo1. He wants a Christ from heaven, but cannot get Christ to the earth.
Then he wants a Christ to raise from the dead, but he cant have that either. Because the Wt got rid of the body. (Live Forever book)
Ultimately he would then want a spirit to raise on the third day, but he cant have that either, because nothing like that came down to begin with.
And you want terms?
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
Again, I still need you to define your terms, because I don't know if you mean his substance of his life force.
Man, this is classic. First we have the faulty questions. Now we have the " I need terms" Terms have been given ad-nauseam. What came down from heaven?
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
If you are 100% something, that is all you are, for there is only 100% of you.
I guess this does'nt apply to the 144k that somehow manifest a spirit that continues on after death, or that is destroyed if the annoited one falls away from the org.
Or maybe its a clone of a spirit that Jehovah would make. To bad its not the original.
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
ROTFL. The demons POSSESSED the swine, they were not the swine themselves. LOL Wow some desperate arguments from you folks.
DDog, Notice the evasive position taken without a real answer to a question, although the dual nature is still not addressed. Must be a faulty question, or maybe the possessed swine where no longer swine LOL. Or maybe they where just a tiny bit of a precentage demons, ya know the part that talks, or the part that jumps into the ocean.
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
DDog,
I would look up if I had another Cd, the official WT position of a "life force" that was given up by Christ. We know spirit beings dont have lungs to breath, so Im curious of what was given up, verses what was transferred?
And what parts of the non-breath life force got transfered?
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but even as such I would not say that each detail of what I believe 100% corresponds to everything the WT states.
DDog,
Does not Jehovah search the hearts of men? And who can question the "faithful slave" that feeds the flock?
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
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.
DDog, What he's really saying is, he has no proof of his assertions/speculations/assumtions. But he would prefer we just take his word on this one. What he also ignores is that fact that the fallen angels/herd of swine, etc... totally distroys his premise of percentages of a being sharing parts. Which you see he failed to address, perhaps another faulty question. Still the burning question remains: what came down from heaven?
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini 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.
-
-
ellderwho
DDog,
Here we have a "pseudo witness" which is certainly encouraging. However, salvation is in the balance for such a witness.
Lets look at this statement re: Christ prehuman existence :
mondo1: He was the same person because he was still himself, his form just changed.
One still has to deal with the dual natures. First, the Bible does not clarify this whatsoever. To assume Christs' nature is "seperated" is pure speculation.
mondo1: I could only speculate and I prefer not to do that.
One really has to ask themselves, why could the fallen angels prior to flood be able to do something Christ cannot?
A second though,t what is so terribly wrong with Christ having a dual nature?