Rosenritter
New member
I have been saying that for the last several rounds of posts. If you didn't notice then it implies that I wasn't being heard as fairly and/or effectively as I hoped on other points. But it seems to be an inevitable sticking point in these types of conversations, so if we are past that it's a good thing. Thank you.
In keeping with the short format examples provided: God a general term we use for the creator of all things that exist (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3); The Father is a name that Jesus used to refer to God while he was on the earth (John 1:14-18, John 4:21); Jesus was the manifestation of that God in the flesh on earth roughly two thousand years ago (John 1:10, 1 Timothy 3:16).
False.
In such a question format, any portion of falsity in the preceding statement (assumptions) renders the rest of the statement false and and resulting conclusions invalid. The flaw lies in the statement "... even though they are distinguished form each other." Were there such a distinction, that would make one exclude the other, then your question would be valid.
Revelation 1:5-7 KJV
(5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
(6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Many times things are listed together with "and" as a means of repetition or restatement from another angle. When you see verse 5, would you say that "Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness" is distinguished from "the first begotten of the dead" and also from "the prince of the kings of the earth?" And for your argument to be consistent, also you would need to say that "God" and "his Father" are distinguished from each other.
Your argument is contained in the assumption to which I have objected. The perception of merit depends upon omission of the relevant context which is still on its way in the next few verses.
Revelation 1:8, "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending" is identified both as "the Lord" and "which is, and which was, and which is the come" and "the Almighty.
Revelation 1:11-17 identifies "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" as "he that liveth, and was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore."
So if you omit the relevant context, it's quite possible to make the scripture seem like it says a lot of different things. Take verse 4 by itself and omit the context, and it might seem like a succession of three unique items. Take the passage as it is written, as part of a whole, and it's as clear as A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.
FALSE. Again, flawed leading question. The KJV has not added in phrases and words into its translation, it has translated words and phrases in its translation.
Please allow me to assist. Did you mean to ask, "why do you see the words and phrases found in the majority manuscripts as valid if they might not be found in one or more manuscripts that are estimated to as more ancient?" If you show that you can construct a question fairly, it might indicate that you would could digest the answer fairly as well.
I will give you a preview of an answer. "Older" or "more ancient" is not the proof or evidence of authenticity. In fact, those manuscripts consistently called "most ancient" are some of the most corrupt, evidenced even by crossing outs and corrections plainly visible on their face.
I own many different books, including the Book of Mormon and a couple New World Translations. These books remain in excellent condition (book of Mormon I got new, the NWT stayed in same condition as they were taken from Goodwill stores) and are likely to survive my King James. Why is this? I don't recognize them as legitimate, so they stay safe on the shelf. Real translations recognized by Christians get used, the originals wear out, and these are the ones that are reproduced, not the ones recognized as corrupt. Therefore, other factors are involved in determining the legitimacy of a reading, other than the claim of "most ancient."
Melchizedek was one priesthood, Jesus was another. I'll confess to playing computer games in times past, back when it required that one know how to use telnet form a Unix terminal. Within the same game, one might use names like "Fog" or "Sinder" and one was a warrior, and the other was another warrior, that doesn't mean that one can't honestly say that "Rosenritter" (the name that you know me as today) wasn't both Fog and Sinder then. Yet Fog wasn't exactly Sinder, and vice versa. It depends on what it is you are seeking to emphasize as to whether you would say they "were" each other or speak of them separately.
Nay. You were attempting to show this, but the closest you got was that the angels said that "we will destroy" the place.
It indicates that God speaks to us through Jesus in these last days.
I am not persuaded that the alleged "initial application" was indeed an initial application. I suspect that you may be think that you may wish to seek a different "initial application" than the intended meaning, which was a prophetic reference to Christ. Your question presumes that I accept your interpretation of "initial application."
I am not persuaded that the passage referred to King David at all. The text doesn't read at all to support such an assumption.
Acts 4 doesn't say that the passage applied to David, they said it was spoken by David. It always applied to Christ. Your argument at this point seems to be suspiciously created.
Acts 4:24-25 KJV
(24) And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
(25) Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
These do apply to King Solomon, but they do not apply to Jesus. There's no primary and secondary applications here either.
It doesn't apply to human kings as initial applications, as I've already mentioned above in the in-line comments. The "If" clause invalidates the rest of the question as inapplicable. Regardless, I've lost where you're attempting to go with this.
Last edited:
