Posts by Mondo1

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Hellrider,

Obviously you don't remember denying an intermediate use, but you did. Here is what you wrote:

So, what you are saying is the following: "The word "God" carries with it more than one sense". I agree with this. There are in the Bible two previously known ways to use it: 1) The first one is in the sense the eternal God (monotheistic) and in the other,2) "god", it is is used as a title, for prophets, lawmakers and the like, much like "lord". However: You are introducing a third meaning of the word! I showed you how the meaning 2 is not the meaning of how the early church fathers used this word! You sidestepped this issue by not commenting on their statements at all! On the other hand, you are denying that the early church fathers used the meaning 1) about God. So basically, what you are saying is that there is a meaning in between 1) and 2). There is no Biblical foundation for this. The term can only be used either in the 1st sense (monotheistic) or in the 2nd sense (as just a title for some great person/prophet).

Hopefully you'll see now what the issue was.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Hellrider, The question was whether or not there is an intermediate sense of the word god. This would mean a sense that is higher than the judges of Israel but lower than God Almighty. You denied this. So the discussion went on to demonstrate that this is the case, and I did so. You attempted to bring in a red herring, which is whether or not Jesus is an angel. This was not the topic at all. I'm sorry if you are upset, but we need to stick with the issues, and these were the issues. Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Leolaia,

I plan to respond, but in order to do so properly and completely (and also because I am slightly behind in my class work.. spending too much time here lately) it will likely be several days before the response will be posted.

Kenneson,

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.

For Jesus, he remained who he was, but what he was changed. He was the same person, with a new type of existence.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Kenneson,

At no time have I articulated any of my position on those matters. You are asking those questions without knowing if they are even based upon a correct premise. Irregardless, when Jesus became a man, he truly "became flesh" and as he became it, he no longer was what he was before he became that something new.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

hellrider,

I know that ELOHIM means "gods" (plural), and that it is here used as a word for angels. The funny thing is that Genesis 1.1 in hebrew reads "In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth". I wonder how you explain that within your anti-trinitarian view, but that is another matter. The point is that I have overturned the basic argument long ago, and this is why you are refusing to answer the direct questions asked above. Case closed.

The plural does nothing for Trinitarianism. It means "gods" not "one God with multiple persons." It is also used as a majestic or emphatic plural, for individuals, such as the Jewish King in Psa. 45:6, just as the plural "lords" was used in the same way for Saul.

It is laughable (quite literally) that you think you have overturned anything, when you won't even engage the argument. You only side step it. The fact is, the angels are gods in a sense higher than the judges and lower than God. I have soundly demonstrated this, and you refuse to engage it. If you think I'm not answering certain questions, you're right, I'm not, because I'm not allowing you to try and turn the discussion away from the topic, which is what you are trying to do because you have seen that your position has failed. You have introduced a red herring (the issue of whether or not Jesus is an angel) and I'm not going to allow you to get away with it, because you'll do what Trinitarians who have seen the error of their argument so often do, which is move into the subject of their red herring while avoiding the original issue.

Deal with the issue, which is that angels are gods in a sense greater than those men who are identified as such, but in a sense less than that of the Almighty. This is the issue, but not it seems you are trying hard to avoid it.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Hellrider,

You're still not overturning the basic argument. Angels are gods in a sense higher than man, for Jesus was also a god in the sense of the judges of Israel while on Earth, but he was still "a little lower than the gods." Hence they are gods in a sense higher than the judges of Israel.

btw, I don't think you were arguing this, but just in case you were, ELOHIM never *means* angels. It is a term applies to angels, but it never means it.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Hellrider,

Nice try on the mistranslation. The text says <B>gods</b>, translated from the Hebrew ELOHIM.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Littletoe,

If what you claim is true, by all means show me.

Hellrider,

Psalm 8:5 reads "you made him a little lower than the godS." ELOHIM. Hebrews 2 quotes this showing it to be angels.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Hellrider,

Entirely unfounded. The angels are called gods in a sense that is in between, and there is no reason that Jesus could not be such in between the sense of angels and God Almighty. Consulting just about any Greek lexicon points to this.

Mondo

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

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.

Mondo1

Kenneson,

The matter of what God was not is not my argument, I was responding to that argument.

For the Hebrew, QANAH refers to what is aquired, and one way of aquiring, the way God uses, is creation. Hence the LXX uses KTIZW. Thus, what I said is correct. The proper sense is "created," not "begot." See http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/wisdom

Mondo