NWL
Active member
You actually forgot part of it. This is actually what you wrote. I'll boldface something that you may not have noticed:
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
Without tryin to insult, you keep playing tactical stupidity.
I asked you directly "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?". I quoted the entire analogy I gave, you then stated I quoted incorrectly and quoted my entire analogy along with reasoning. You then went on to explain how Paul could be part of paul house, I didnt ask whether Paul could be seen as part of his own house of course he could! Moreover I puprosley used the plurual "people" show that the "people" couldn't ONLY apply to Paul as you somehow only insist.
Again, you didn't answer the question, would an everyday reader understand Paul to be James in what I wrote. I ask you as a Christian not to lie but to give an honest answer to this.
Here is what I wrote again : "Rosenritter may you have blessings fromPaul 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"
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?
No because the langauge is not the same. Someone COULD conclude there are two people in being addressed, one as Jesus God and one as Jesus Father. However since the conext of the NT expleciity shows God is Jesus father, thus Rev 1:6 and like verses are viewed in light of these. There is nothing grammatically why Jesus "God" and "Father" are separate person, its the context that expresses they are the same person.
As stated this is NOT the case with Rev 1:1,4,5,8. Jesus is shown as separate from God throughout the book as can be seen in Rev 1:1, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him" and Rev 1:9, "I John..was on the island called Patʹmos for speaking about God and bearing witness concerning Jesus", two scriptures you keep failing to include in the context of Rev 1:8 when referring to "the one coming" as God when compared to the "one coming" in Rev 1:4. So even if Rev 1:4,5 left out the modiferes context would still show that you are incorrect, since the grammar also denies that all the blessing were coming from the "one coming" in Rev 1:4,5 you have no point.
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.
This reasoning denies your previous reasoning that the terms "seven spirits" and "Jesus Christ" were merely restatements of the title of the "the one coming". Your reasoning here also fails to address why Jesus is mentioned as separate from God in Rev 1:1 and Rev 1:9 but is somehow God mentioned in Revelation 1:8.
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.
Your argument here is ridiculous. God of course is NOT a name, but it is a title and is used as such throughout the Bible and in Rev 1:1. You're trying to impose the attributes of a title in place of the title simply to try and get out of a sticky situation. It doesn't work, again, coming from the person who said take scripture for what it says how you can't see that your attempting to twist scripture is beyond me.
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.
You don't understand grammar, I've shown you how Jesus was shown as separate from "the one coming" by the grammar which you've chosen to ignore and not address, all you say is "they're titles restatements" without realising according to the grammar they simply cannot be.
I could get you to show me every instance of God in revelation and compare it to where it mentions Jesus, every time when they are mentioned together Jesus is always separate from God.
Rev 1:4 states that "the one coming" is the one who sits on the throne "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, Rev 5:6,7 then goes on to state that Jesus the lamb takes the scroll out of the hand of the one who sits on that throne, thus Jesus isn't the "the One who is and who was and who is coming" who sits on the throne.
(Revelation 5:6, 7) "..And I saw standing in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the elders a lamb that seemed to have been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, and the eyes mean the seven spirits of God that have been sent out into the whole earth. 7 At once he came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne.."
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?
Again you fail to understand that the Father acts through his son in all things. Much like the Father created the world through Jesus and thus Jesus is talked about creating things even though the Father is the source of creation the Father judges the world through Jesus as shown in scripture.
(Acts 17:31) Because he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead.”
Thus the Father judges as does the son, likewise Jesus comes as instructed by the Father the A&O, thus the Father comes by means of Jesus.
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.
No, because as already shown the Father is the source of creation NOT Jesus, hence the reason why the Father is called the Father since Father implies he is the source of life. You can disregard this text that states Jesus WILL not be ashamed to call them brother in regards to the one conquering but that won't make you right rosenritter.
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.
How can he NOT be the same high priest if it says in the OT he was High priest forever, are you admitting that when it says forever it did not literally mean forever? I though the whole reason why you asserted Jesus was Melchizedek was because of the eternal language used in regards to Melchizedek. Again are you saying forever didn't literally mean forever?
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."
You never cease to amaze me, why create you're own analogy with different language when you have the perfect example to copy??? Let's rephrase it with the knowledge Trump is already going to nuke Canada
Trumps agents say "For we are going to destroy this place, because Trumps hate against Canada has indeed grown great before Trump, so that Trump sent us to destroy Canada”
In what world would anyone reading that understand that to mean anything other than the agents of trump were the ones who were going to destroy Canada?? No one would, again you are blatantly twisting a meaning out of the verse that is not there upon reading it plainly.
The no representative of God ever speaks as doing something that they know they aren't actually going to do because God is the real one behind the actions as this takes glory way from God. For example according to you Moses as directed by Gods spirit should be "part of a team" with God should he not
(Numbers 20:7-10) "..Then Jehovah said to Moses...speak to the crag before their eyes that it may give its water...So Moses took the rod from before Jehovah, just as He had commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron called the congregation together before the crag, and he said to them: “Hear, now, you rebels! Must we bring out water for you from this crag?..Jehovah later said to Moses and Aaron: “Because you did not show faith in me and sanctify me before the eyes of the people of Israel, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I will give them.”
Because Moses said that HE and Aaron were the ones who brought the water out of the crag and did not say it was by means of Jehovah God punished them. But according to you they were allowed to speak in that way because they were part of a team were they not!? No, your reasoning is NOT biblical and there isn't a single example of this ridiculous "working part of a team" notion, the bible actually contradicts such a thought.
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.
I was asking you to explain what you meant by this :"If you are the type that equates the Son and the Father because you understand his being, then it would." Equates the Father and son as what, one being?
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.
We agree on this, I've never denied any of this, the only point I make is to what type of God Jesus is. The bible mentions there is only one true God (John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6) but it also talks about other who are rightly called Gods/gods. And again the evidence of the majority argument is hardly an argument, it proves nothing, according to the bible it is the minority of Christians who are saved in favour of the majority ((Matthew 7:13,21).
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.
They were Davids own words, Jesus himself admitted the language style relates to David, which I'll soon show according to writing style.
Acts 4:24,25 has the apostles calling David the speaker in Psalms 2 , "and who said by holy spirit by the mouth of our forefather David, your servant: ‘Why did nations become agitated and peoples meditate on empty things?" you attribute to them simply saying David was the one "speaking the prophecy" but the sayings aren't about him. But notice how Jesus uses the same language in regards to David speaking, and then goes onto explain that the words David said by means of the spirit were regarding David himself.
(Mark 12:35-37) "..However, as Jesus continued teaching in the temple, he said: “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is David’s son? 36 By the holy spirit, David himself said[/U], ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him Lord, so how can it be that he is his son?” And the large crowd was listening to him with pleasure.."
Jesus states that what is said by David under inspiration are David actual words regarding himself. You are correct that prophecies can be regarding things besdie themelves but many times, including the one regarding David are not. If you were to study Isa 7:14: 8:10,11 compared to Matt 1:23 you'd see yet another example.
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.
I've never suggested David is the son of God, I've simply stated he prefigured Jesus.
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.
No you didn't, I clearly said show me how the things said regarding Christ compared to David that don't relate, when I said this I clearly stated I was asking in reference to Psalms 2, not literally everything said of Christ compared to David.
The TRUE declaration of Independence is not the original copy or subsequent copies, it's the words therein.
Rosenritter you're yet playing the tactical stupidity game. Answer the question how I asking them. If you want to add or expand or do not think I've asked and honset question please state so after answering the questions. I've simplified the questions for you.
Is a copy of the declaration of independence the first initial written declaration of Independence? My question is not about the contents but "manuscript hard copies"
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.
I asked the question directly to you rosenritter to avoid the argument you're presenting, you certainly know the difference between yourself and someone who is an image of, so again answer the question.
If I magically made a image of you, who was exactly the same as you, you watched me made him, If I then killed him, have I killed you, the person who just saw me kill your image or have I killed your image?
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.
My example is the exact reasons why signets rings were made. The wax impression is NOT the symbol that left the impression, as you mentioned. I wasn't talking about what the representation means so don't know why you mentioned mentioned it being greater than it, moreover, saying that the representation is greater than what its an impression of is to say Jesus is greater than what he is a representation of, namely God, so you're wrong since that is not the case.
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
Then is the statement that Jesus is the "image of God" incorrect? Jesus is either God or the "image" of that God, you can't have two statements that oppose each other that are both true . Again, Is Jesus the "image" of God or God according to Col 1:15?