So are you're seriously saying that in the example I gave that the everyday person who read it would understand the the people who lived in the house (plurual) was Paul, and that James was also Paul, lets try and be honest when answering this, is that what you truly believe? And in what I said what language was used to suggest James might live in the house???
Here is what I wrote again : "Rosenritter may ... "
You actually forgot part of it. This is actually what you wrote. I'll boldface something that you may not have noticed:
I'm not assuming anything! I'm simply reading and understanding the text how it reads. If I said "Rosenritter may you have blessings from Paul and from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero", Anyone who read the small snippet above would identify 3 different person who blessing came from, no one would claim that James was simply another name for Paul or that the people who lived in Pauls house meant Paul. And if someone did claim they were seperate people in no way would that be assuming. I don't think you understand what assume means my friend.
When you have blessings from Paul and the people who live in his house, normal people would assume that Paul lives in his own house. Perhaps you might have the occasional person here and there that might reserve that maybe Paul is renting his house to someone else, but it would take an odd duck indeed to look at that and say that it emphatically excludes Paul from his own home.
Now I will grant that people develop different styles of writing, and that the flow of introduction will depend on whether you are reading the Apostle John, Tom Clancy, or Danielle Steele. But we aren't reading Tom Clancy or Danielle Steele, we are reading John, and John (like many of the biblical authors) is known to employ
parallel repetition for emphasis. Look here, just two verses down and still in the same phrase and breath,
Rev 1:6
(6) And hath made us kings and priests
unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
To deny that John employs repetition for emphasis, using more than one form of address for the same being, would be to deny that "God" and "his Father" were one and the same. Are you willing to do that? Yes? No?
In verse 4, "the one which is, and which was, and which is to come" is alluded to, but not yet introduced or named. It does mention that he has seven Spirits before his throne.
In verse 5, we have grace and peace extended from Jesus Christ, with a long introduction that continues through verse 6 and 7. If you want to know who it is that "which is, and which was, and which is to come" you need to keep reading in the book. It will be
revealed. If you want a clue who is being revealed in this book, it the "
revelation of Jesus Christ" after all...
In verse 8, we are also introduced to "Alpha and Omega, beginning and the ending, saith the Lord" .. "which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
So if you are willing to employ A= B, B = C logic, you know that "him which is, and which was, and which is to come" is the Lord Almighty.
So here's where your argument becomes inconsistent. The same logical connection that links "which is, and which was, and which is to come",
that same A = B, B = C, therefore A = C logic, also declares Jesus as the same Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, within the next couple verses.
Rev 1:11-18
(11)
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
(12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
(13) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto
the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
(14) His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(15) And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
(16) And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me,
Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18)
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
So your argument becomes inconsistent. You're having to try very hard to fight against the literal equivalence freely shown.
I do not deny that Jesus comes, just as the A&O, namely the Father, comes. But again, taking the opening of revelation for how it reads, God is straight away distinguished as separate from Jesus in Rev 1:1, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him",
God isn't a name in itself. It's strength and authority, power and position. Same with "the Son" and "the Father" and "the Lamb" and "the Rock" - these are titles, not names.
Since you like examples for illustration, please allow me: "Greetings from Stewart, who will be coming to greet you, and from their loyal servants, and from James, first of his name, true heir to Scotland and England, protector of the realm, shining star and glory to Stewart."
If you were to say that James was not Stewart, you'd be utterly mistaken. James is of the house of Stewart, even even though he is usually called "James I of England" he is Stewart, "James Stewart." James is of Stewart and is Stewart, he receives his authority to rule by virtue of inheritance from Stewart. The rigid logic you've constructed would exclude James from Stewart.
...soon after this in v8 the A&O is identified as God, “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God", in the very next verse John then distinguishes Jesus from God yet again "I John...was on the island called Patʹmos for speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus". This tied along with the fact that Jesus is spoken as separate from the "one who is coming" in v4,5 shows that Jesus is not the one speaking in v8. The context is completely against it when looking at the beginning of Revelation.
The text doesn't exclude Jesus from being the one who was, and is, and is to come, your rigid mindset is what excludes it. The
actual text defines Jesus to all of these unique identifiers.
The mistake you make is assuming that there can't be two persons who can "come". The scriptures speak of Jehovah as coming, and also of Jesus coming, and that the two comings are closely associated. This does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah. Jehovah, the God and Father of Jesus, comes to judge the world, not only with but by means of Jesus, thus they can both be referred to as coming.
Who is the judge of the quick and the dead? Does it say "judges" or "judge?" How come Jesus is doing everything that you say that Jehovah is doing? Dear Lois, you still haven't figured out that who Clark looks like if he were to take off those glasses?
We can see in this verse that the A&O says in regards to the one who overcome that he will be their God and they will be sons to him, but Jesus said regarding the people "who conquer" that he would call them "brothers" not sons, so the evidence suggest that the one speaking here is the Father and not Jesus(compare Matthew 25:40 Hebrews 2:10-12).
In some context he is our father because he has created us, in other he is our brother as he has experienced this world as we have. In one aspect he is our judge, in another he is our intercessor, and in yet another he is our sacrifice and in yet one more instance he is our food.
Your mistake lies in forbidding God to fill more than one niche in our relationship. I have a daughter, and as such I am her father, but I will also be her friend and her brother in Christ. By your inflexible logic, I couldn't possibly be the same real person.
Says the one who blatantly misreads Rev 1:4-6 .... "kai apo" applied to Jesus and the Seven spirits, why isn't the preposition lacking as you should expect it if the names were really restatements to the "one coming"? ... title restatements in conjunction has usage of "kai apo" to modify the initial subject? I'm quite certain there isn't a single example of one since the claim is absurd to begin with.
Speak English please. Regardless, I think you're preemptively answered above with my example of Stewart.
In your mind maybe, not when you read the verse for what it says. No person would reasonably think "oh it calls Jesus another high priest I guess that means he was the same high priest" your reasoning on the basic level fails. You haven't given a credible reply other than "Jesus was Melcehidek to different people".. so what! Furthermore to claim someone wrote in that manner for those reasons is pure speculation.
You're not reading very carefully. I didn't say he was the same high priest, I said it was ultimately the same being. "Priest" is a role, a position, not the person itself. Did you tell me whether Fog was the same as Sinder? No matter how you answer with a simple yes or no, I could show how context would demand the opposite reply.
This is coming from the person who said take scripture for what it says, now you're claiming that the reason why the two angels said "we are going to destroy this place " because "Jehovah sent us to destroy the city” was because they were "part of a team", do you actually hear yourself. Please explain to me how there are two Jehovah's then since there is only one Jehovah according to scripture (Deut 6:4).
You are really unfamiliar with how one can speak of being part of the team of a person, without calling themselves that person? "
Trump is going to nuke Canada" and "
we are special secret agents of the president, I warn you we are going to nuke Canada" would be inconsistent with Trump himself pressing the red button from his secret bat-cave? The agents aren't calling themselves Trump. There is only one Trump. "
And Trump rained down fire from the sky upon Canada."
This makes no sense. Equates the son and father as what? as One? Separation of what of the son and Father being one? You have;t fully explained things here. Your analogy related to yourself in a compter game where you had two different aliases, Hebrews 7 was in regards to Jesus and one apparent name his shared with himself in the OT, so I don't see how you analogy is relevant. Take one of your characters away and rephrase the analogy to fit the one found in Heb 7 and re-ask me the question.
I have trouble understanding your question. Yes, my analogy used a computer game, because it is an example of how one can exist outside of a created world and inside that created world within its rules at the same time. Circumstances would dictate how you revealed yourself, or even if it was by position or personality.
Joh 1:1-3
(1)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3)
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:10-11
(10)
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
A fact doesn't need to be mutually accepted, how many thousands of years was it before man relised the earth was a sphere and not flat, did the fact that majority of people accepted the flat earth theory mean the earth being a sphere wasn't factual? Nope. King David was the speaker in Psalms 2 and he did say "He [God] said to "me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father", this is fact! Moreover it has been accepted by people and scholars alike that David was attributed this to himself whilst also understanding it to relate to Christ.
OK, I will accept your definition of fact. It is a FACT that the scripture calls Jesus God, prophesies Jesus as God, and that Jesus calls himself God, the language itself is conducive to this.. You are one of the few tiny minority that argue against this where pretty much everyone else accepts this. This isn't an argument, it's a fact.
Now if you want to continue to argue against known fact, please go ahead. Now let's go back to Psalm 2. You claim that because David wrote the psalm, that "the LORD hath said unto me" means David? It seems to me that you don't understand how prophesies are written. Authors often write for people besides themselves:
that is a fact.
Act 8:26-35
(26) And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
(27) And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
(28) Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
(29) Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
(30) And Philip ran thither to him,
and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
(31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(32) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
(33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
(34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said,
I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth,
and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Likewise I say to you, Psalm 2 was written by the prophet David, and it speaks not of himself, but of Jesus. Which "day" hath the Lord "begotten" David? We are told that
Jesus is the only begotten son of the LORD (John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, 1 John 4:9). Was David given the "uttermost parts of the earth" as a possession?
David is not the Son of God.
Everything said in the text can apply to David, and everything in the text can apply to Christ. The question you need to asnwer is what In Pslams 2 doesn't apply to David. Remember David is the one who is literally saying it, he applied some of the saying to himself v7, the burden of proof lies with the people who say its not in regards to David.
Proved. As above. The LORD has only one begotten son. But you've placed the burden of proof wrong. Paul applies this to Jesus. Nowhere does the scripture show that this psalm is to be applied to David. The burden of proof really belongs in your court.
If I have a copy of the one true declaration of independence, does not the fact I said "copy" imply that I do NOT have the actual one true declaration of independence but rather a copy of it.
The TRUE declaration of Independence is not the original copy or subsequent copies, it's the words therein.
If I was to magically make another human who was the exact image of you rosenwritter, even your thought processes were the same, if I then killed him in front of you, did I kill you or the image I made of you?[/QUOTE]
By definition, impossible to tell and irrelevant. The closest analogy to your scenario is the Star Trek transporter, which does create copies and then destroys one of the two. If they are really identical like in your picture, then it's impossible to tell them apart.
If I have a signet ring and push the stamp of the signet ring into wax, is the representation of that signet ring stamp a representation of the signet ring stamp or is it the signet ring stamp itself?
The signet is the symbol of something greater than the ring, not the ring. It doesn't matter whether this image is found in metal or in wax. The wax copy is not the image of the metal ring. Your analogy breaks because both items are images of the same thing.
If Jesus is the "image" of "God", is Jesus the "image" or is he the "God"?
He is God. "My glory I will not share with another" he says. And in another place, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." If it is as you say, then Jesus not only took the name of the LORD in vain, he took the name of the LORD for HIMSELF. If it is as you say, Jesus was not guiltless.
