Trinity Proof Scriptures

[Dartman]

No, it doesn't obviously mean anything, in fact, without the context it is impossible to discern the meaning of those 5 words.

Let me prove my point.

I answered, and said to Wendy; "my brother, and my dog".

Please tell me what I meant.

Dartman, it does obviously mean "You are my Lord and my God." I have read the Unitarian websites and most of them (and their authors) acknowledge that is what it certainly looks like.

Then, they are expressing their own opinion, which I do not share. I don't claim to agree with, OR to represent, all unitarians.

Let me prove my point.

I answered, and said to Wendy; "my brother, and my dog".

Please tell me (without the context) what I meant.

Since VERY few have EVER actually attempted to explain my virtually identical example, and EVERY ONE of those guesses was wrong, I will make the obvious point.

You can't determine the meaning of any 5 word phrase like this, without the context.

The context in John 20 is, Jesus PROVED to Thomas that his God had resurrected his Lord from the dead.

It is MORE "obvious", given that the context establishes the RESURRECTION as the topic, and NOT any discussion of Christ's "humanity/deity".... that Thomas was praising Both his God who raised Jesus, and his Lord who God had brought back to life.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

 

[Dartman]

If happen to die today and I go to haven, and I stand before God.
What kind of throne I'll see?

Ezek 1:26-28
26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man upon it above.
27 And I saw as it were glowing metal, as the appearance of fire within it round about, from the appearance of his loins and upward; and from the appearance of his loins and downward I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about him.
28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah.

Do I see God the father alone?

Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.

Do I see Jesus the man?

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Do I see Jesus the God?

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[Dartman]

If you think Christ is the highest created being, you are essentially Mormon.

Not true at all. I am VERY "NOT" Mormon, and the Scriptures show Jesus of Nazareth was created by his God causing Mary's egg to develop through a miracle, and his God has exalted Jesus to be Lord, Christ, Prince and Savior.

 

[Dartman]

And did a person make that script? It's still a group of people you're lying to, who set up their policies of no one under a certain age may use their account. You're lying to them, not a script that can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood.

No one is claiming God's spirit is a separate thing. God's spirit is God's mind, and the power produced by God's mind.

My mind/spirit isn't the entire being, but if you deceive my mind/spirit, if you play "mind games", if you change my mind/spirit, if you confuse my mind/spirit ....... you have affected ME.

When you lie to Jehovah/YHVH God's spirit, you have lied to Jehovah/YHVH God. That you cannot be forgiven of. Jesus said lying to Jesus is forgivable.
Matt 12:31 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

 

[Oleander]

Thank you.
How is trinitarian see who sit on the throne?

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosenritter, I thank you for you repsonse, you are unlike others who run away at the reasoning I give. I am well aware that it takes time to write such a response so thank you.

I get your point and reasoning but can think of reasons why it's not correct in my opinion, which I will demonstrate. You have shown that terms God, ALMIGHTY, Jehovah and most high are terms that are applied to one person, which I too believe. You have then shown that Jehovah is also called the first and the last (Isaiah verses). You have then shown verses in revelation that reference Jesus being the first and the last. You're reasoning is that since Jehovah is mentioned as the first and the last and is clearly also known as the Most high, ALMIGHTY and God that Jesus is that same being, since, he is referred to as "the first and the last" and also ALMIGHTY according to the verses you showed in revelation, especially Rev 1:8.

I will now demonstrate why your reasoning is not correct according to my knowledge of the scriptures.

The foundation of your reasoning rest on the statements of Jesus being the "first and the last" and him being the person spoken of in Rev 1:8 who is referred to as "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty". I must also say it is bad practice to argue a point on a verse which is debated, namely Rev 1:11. The reading of Rev 1:11 in the way the KJV renders it is argued by most modern days scholars as spurious(a forgery) since it is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts, hence the reason why it is not rendered that way in most bible's today.

I appreciate the level style of your response. Rather than attempting to further points, I will respond to the validity (merits) of your responses, which I hope may be productive.

"Earliest manuscripts" are not the original manuscripts, it's typically a phrase used to refer to the two most notoriously corrupt manuscripts, including the one kept by the Vatican and the one that monks at the Sinai desert literally scheduled for burning (it was that bad.) Regardless, two points:

1. "Oldest" manuscript is not an indicator of authenticity, as the "oldest" extant manuscripts are notoriously corrupt and as witnesses disagree with each other. It is acknowledged that Revelation (the book) has much less surviving manuscript evidence than the other books. This particular point deserves its own special attention, but I'll ask, have you ever seen a picture (photograph) of what the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts look like? With the handwritten cross-outs and alterations all over every page?

2. Whether a passage is "debated" only indicates is also an indication that the passage was considered important enough that people of differing opinion would be willing to damage it in an attempt to remove it from consideration. Textual criticism recognizes that it is far more likely and probable for a passage to be removed from where it existed than to be added where it never had existence. If you are asserting that someone would be so motivated to alter scripture to add, you should likewise consider that the same spirit would be willing to delete. It goes both ways.

One of the point I argue is that when Jesus is called "the first and the last" that's it's an relating to something different to when Jehovah is called the "first and the last" in the OT. When can see this when comparing the context of the verses in question.

Spoiler

(Isaiah 41:4) "..Who has acted and done this,Summoning the generations from the beginning? I, Jehovah, am the First One;And with the last ones I am the same.."

(Isaiah 44:6) "..This is what Jehovah says,The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Jehovah of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last.There is no God but me.."

(Isaiah 48:11-13) "..For my own sake, for my own sake I will act,For how could I let myself be profaned? I give my glory to no one else. 12 Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called.I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last.."

The context of the above verses are in regards to Jehovah being sovereign, the only God and not sharing his deity with any God since he is the only one. Now let's look at the context of when Jesus is called the "first and the last".

Spoiler

(Rev 1:17-18) ".. laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave.."

(Rev 2:8) "..And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again.."

Notice that the context of Jesus being the "first and the last" relate to his death and resurrection. This is s completely different contrast to Jehovah being called "the first and the last" where the context relates to him being 'the only God'. Jesus is called the first and the last since he was the first person who was raised from the dead by the God himself, and he was the last person who was raised by God directly. All other resurrections are to be done by means of Jesus. Where a God is the first and the last in the sense that he is the first God and last/only God who ever will be.

3. If you are arguing that titles of identification are not used for identification, then what is the point of using those titles?

4. If Jesus was "the first and the last" in relation to death and resurrection, then you and I are without hope of eternal life, and this defies Paul's statement that according to the scriptures he believes in the resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust. But this isn't what Jesus says: he does not say "I am the first alive and I am the last to be made alive" which would be wrong on BOTH counts. Even if you changed that to "I am the first to live forevermore and the last to live forevermore" that would still be wrong. Without some other qualifier it isn't an adjective, it's a title, and that title already has specific meaning.

And to claim that title that already has specific meaning would be blasphemy, unless, of course, the title was rightly claimed.

Regarding the identity the one spoken of in Rev 1:8, this one is NOT Jesus. This is clear by reading the context to Rev 1 as I will show. Notice, the "one who is and who was and who is coming" is the same person as the Almighty as seen in Rev 1:8

(Rec 1:8) "..I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.."

Now notice how Rev 1:4-5 mentions the "one who is and who was and who is coming" along with other persons below.

(Rev 1:4-5) "..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, 5 AND from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead.."

Jesus is clearly a separate person from the "one who is and who was and who is coming" in Rev 1:4-5, thus Jesus is not the "one who is and who was and who is coming" in Rev 1:8, this is irrefutable and plain as day.

Jesus certainly is one who is and was and it coming. Which part of that do you dispute? He certainly is, as he is speaking when he allows John to bow down before him and worship (which the angels in that same Revelation forbid), and he certainly was, and he is certainly coming, as the book concludes "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Rev 22:20).

You are supposing that God cannot be referred to multiple ways if the spirits beside his throne are also referred to.

Revelation 1:7-8 KJV
(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.
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 22:12-20 KJV
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
(17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
(18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
(19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(20) He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

What you supposed is contradicted by additional identification in the passages themselves, even within the same phrasing. Alpha and Omega is the same title as "the first and the last" and is also used for Jesus in additional locations in the same book, which repeats its theme that Jesus is the one who was and is and is coming. What else do you suppose "is to come" would refer to, other than the repeated "I am coming" message in that book?

To recap, I have demonstrated that Jesus being "the first and the last" and Jehovah being "the first and the last" in the relevant verses relate to different things, they are called the first and the last for different reasons. We see this throughout scripture with such expressions as "King of kings", more than one person can have an expression applied to them without the need to illogical conclude they are the same person especially when context shows that there is a difference.

I am surprised that you would sacrifice the doctrine of resurrection to eternal life to preserve the Unitarian stance. 1 Corinthians 15? "We shall be changed?" Luke 20:36, "Neither can they die any more... being the children of the resurrection?"

Besides that, if we were to consistently apply your logic, there is no name or title that can be used for identification in the whole scripture, including "Almighty" or "Jesus" or "Jehovah." Names and titles cannot be nonsensical and without consistent meaning or they loose all purpose.

I have also shown how Jesus is not the one being spoke of in Rev 1:8 (the one who is coming) as he is clearly mentioned as a separate person from that one in Rev 1:4-5.

You alleged that the form of address meant separate persons, but the evidence within Revelation itself counters that allegation. It plainly does say that Jesus is the one who is coming. "And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me" and "Surely I come quickly." Jesus is obviously the one who is coming.

Therefore, the reasoning you gave to try and prove that Jesus is the most high fails, Jesus is and always will be the son OF the most high, as scripture plainly states.

I think there are some problems with the logic you gave above. Summarizing,

1) Names and titles are for the purposes of identification, and "I am the first and the last" is an established unique title of God.Do you suppose that He who gave that Revelation didn't realize that the title was already used in Isaiah? That seems like a very unstable position, and one which also would have bad results if applied consistently in other areas. How do you know that this "God" in Revelation is the same as in other books, for example? But that reasoning, you don't... and no name or title can be counted on to be consistent throughout scripture.

2) The only trait mentioned in that phrase would be regarding being he who was dead and now lives forever more, but the doctrine of resurrection to eternal life is also well established. Jesus is not the first to die, and he is not the last to be raised to eternal life, and he is not the last to live forever more.

Acts 26:8 KJV
(8) Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

Yet your view is leading you to argue that Jesus is the last person that God will raise from the dead. Oh, you say, someone else will raise the dead? Really? God will not be raising the dead? All that to avoid the defined meaning of the title "the first and the last?"


3) You also argued that Jesus was not "he who is to come" but the entire theme of the book is that Jesus is he who is to come. It even states that Jesus is he who is to come in the verse right above the section in dispute. It is the theme of the finale of the book and also its conclusion.

4) Jesus is further established as "He who is to come" because there is an additional title introduced unique to the Greek text, "I am Alpha and Omega" which is also used at the end of the book in reference to Christ.

Alpha and Omega = Almighty = He who is to come = first and the last = Jesus = bright and morning star

You forgot about that part, I think. Anthony Buzzard (Unitarian) has to postulate that there must be two different "Alpha and Omegas" to deal with this difficulty. But even if you argue that Jesus is the first and the last to be raised from the dead (he was not) or the first and the last to be raised to eternal life (he is not) the title "Alpha and Omega" does not lead itself to being shuffled away as if it were an adjective. Why would the title "Alpha and Omega" be used in the same book for different people? That would be nonsense.

And if such is entertained, then why wouldn't "God" be eighteen or fifteen hundred different people if names and titles cannot be counted to have consistent meaning in scripture or even within the same book? Oh, "there is One God?" you say? Well, what if "one" means "one in purpose?" as I think you have argued for John 10:30? Oh, but only one Jehovah? What if there is more than one named Jehovah? See, when a name cannot be counted on as for identification, and titles can be shared, nothing means anything anymore.

In conclusion, the logic you just attempted to employ (if accepted) would prove much more then you bargain for. By breaking language all together 2 + 2 = 5 and you can then prove or disprove anything with broken logic.

So rather than just leave you with a broken answer, here's a better one. Jesus is God, as Jesus is "God meets world in the flesh." That's the meaning of "Son of God." It doesn't mean that God is limited to physical form or that he pre-existed in a physical form or that he currently has a physical form. It does mean that this is who he is when he comes in physical form.

This acceptance of Jesus as LORD and Creator and Alpha and Omega and the first and the last does not need to argue that scripture should be omitted, that names and titles are to be counted as meaningless, and it does not deny the resurrection of the dead to eternal life.

 

[Dartman]

Rosenritter, I thank you for you repsonse, you are unlike others who run away at the reasoning I give. I am well aware that it takes time to write such a response so thank you.

I get your point and reasoning but can think of reasons why it's not correct in my opinion, which I will demonstrate. You have shown that terms God, ALMIGHTY, Jehovah and most high are terms that are applied to one person, which I too believe. You have then shown that Jehovah is also called the first and the last (Isaiah verses). You have then shown verses in revelation that reference Jesus being the first and the last. You're reasoning is that since Jehovah is mentioned as the first and the last and is clearly also known as the Most high, ALMIGHTY and God that Jesus is that same being, since, he is referred to as "the first and the last" and also ALMIGHTY according to the verses you showed in revelation, especially Rev 1:8.

I will now demonstrate why your reasoning is not correct according to my knowledge of the scriptures.

The foundation of your reasoning rest on the statements of Jesus being the "first and the last" and him being the person spoken of in Rev 1:8 who is referred to as "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty". I must also say it is bad practice to argue a point on a verse which is debated, namely Rev 1:11. The reading of Rev 1:11 in the way the KJV renders it is argued by most modern days scholars as spurious(a forgery) since it is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts, hence the reason why it is not rendered that way in most bible's today.

One of the point I argue is that when Jesus is called "the first and the last" that's it's an relating to something different to when Jehovah is called the "first and the last" in the OT. When can see this when comparing the context of the verses in question.

(Isaiah 41:4) "..Who has acted and done this,Summoning the generations from the beginning? I, Jehovah, am the First One;And with the last ones I am the same.."

(Isaiah 44:6) "..This is what Jehovah says,The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Jehovah of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last.There is no God but me.."

(Isaiah 48:11-13) "..For my own sake, for my own sake I will act,For how could I let myself be profaned? I give my glory to no one else. 12 Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called.I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last.."

The context of the above verses are in regards to Jehovah being sovereign, the only God and not sharing his deity with any God since he is the only one. Now let's look at the context of when Jesus is called the "first and the last".

(Rev 1:17-18) ".. laid his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave.."

(Rev 2:8) "..And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrʹna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again.."

Notice that the context of Jesus being the "first and the last" relate to his death and resurrection. This is s completely different contrast to Jehovah being called "the first and the last" where the context relates to him being 'the only God'. Jesus is called the first and the last since he was the first person who was raised from the dead by the God himself, and he was the last person who was raised by God directly. All other resurrections are to be done by means of Jesus. Where a God is the first and the last in the sense that he is the first God and last/only God who ever will be.

Regarding the identity the one spoken of in Rev 1:8, this one is NOT Jesus. This is clear by reading the context to Rev 1 as I will show. Notice, the "one who is and who was and who is coming" is the same person as the Almighty as seen in Rev 1:8

(Rec 1:8) "..I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says the Lord God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.."

Now notice how Rev 1:4-5 mentions the "one who is and who was and who is coming" along with other persons below.

(Rev 1:4-5) "..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, 5 AND from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead.."

Jesus is clearly a separate person from the "one who is and who was and who is coming" in Rev 1:4-5, thus Jesus is not the "one who is and who was and who is coming" in Rev 1:8, this is irrefutable and plain as day.

To recap, I have demonstrated that Jesus being "the first and the last" and Jehovah being "the first and the last" in the relevant verses relate to different things, they are called the first and the last for different reasons. We see this throughout scripture with such expressions as "King of kings", more than one person can have an expression applied to them without the need to illogical conclude they are the same person especially when context shows that there is a difference.

I have also shown how Jesus is not the one being spoke of in Rev 1:8 (the one who is coming) as he is clearly mentioned as a separate person from that one in Rev 1:4-5.

Therefore, the reasoning you gave to try and prove that Jesus is the most high fails, Jesus is and always will be the son OF the most high, as scripture plainly states.

I agree!
The phrase "first and last" means exactly what it says. Jehovah/YHVH God is "first and last" for different reasons than why Jesus is "first and last", but they are BOTH "first and last" in unique ways.

My wife is my "first and last"..... which means there has never been another .... she is unique in that sense.

Your correct interpretation of the texts is in harmony with the rest of Scriptures.

 

[musterion]

Christ, glorified, will come again just as He left -- bodily -- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

 

[way 2 go]

Isn't it amazing how the Jews that misunderstood just about everything Jesus said suddenly became Trinitarians?

the Jews did not become Trinitarians, they picked up stones, so like you they did not believe Jesus is God but
unlike you the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

 

[way 2 go]

Can I lie to Google? I made an account so my daughter could log in to play a video game on an old Android device. I might have exaggerated her age a little so that she would make the minimum to have her own email account (she is age two in real life.) Are Google's automated server scripts a person?

Rosenritter do you believe the Holy Spirit is a person ?

you always translate Spirit as , a current of air, that is, breath.

 

[NWL]

If you think Christ is the highest created being, you are essentially Mormon.

Far from it, since Mormons believe that we can get to the same level as Jesus current self of being, even to the Fathers level of glory in fact. I, nor my faith, believes in such a thing.

Scripture is the one that makes the claim that Jesus is the highest created being, not me.

(Colossians 1:15) "..He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation... Also, he is before all things.."

 

[Right Divider]

Far from it, since Mormons believe that we can get to the same level as Jesus current self of being, even to the Fathers level of glory in fact. I, nor my faith, believes in such a thing.

Scripture is the one that makes the claim that Jesus is the highest created being, not me.

(Colossians 1:15) "..He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation... Also, he is before all things.."

Firstborn does NOT mean created. Firstborn in this CONTEXT means PREEMINENT.

BEFORE ALL THINGS is the CREATOR of ALL THINGS!

 

[musterion]

Far from it, since Mormons believe that we can get to the same level as Jesus current self of being, even to the Fathers level of glory in fact. I, nor my faith, believes in such a thing.

Scripture is the one that makes the claim that Jesus is the highest created being, not me.

(Colossians 1:15) "..He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation... Also, he is before all things.."

Christ according to the flesh (2 Cor 5:16), the last Adam (1 Cor 15:45) is the firstborn of all creation in God's ultimate purpose of the restoration of all things. It all begins with Christ and is done through and by Him.

Romans 8:22-23

Colossians 3:4

 

[musterion]

Incidentally, 1 Cor 15:45 is more proof for the Trinitarian view of God.

 

[NWL]

Firstborn does NOT mean created. Firstborn in this CONTEXT means PREEMINENT.

BEFORE ALL THINGS is the CREATOR of ALL THINGS!

The adjective "firstborn" in Col 1:15 is part of the partitive genitive clause, which means Jesus is is PART OF the group which he is defined as 'KTISEWS' (Creation).

There isn't single example in the bible where someone is "firstborn" of the group and yet not part of the group they're labelled firstborn of.

-The firstborn of beast is a beast.
-The firstborn of Pharoah is a member of Pharoah's family.
-The firstborn of Israel is an Israelite.
-The firstborn of the humans is human

Thus, if Jesus is firstborn of creation he must be part of creation. This is basic language and irrefutable, show me a single example in the bible where someone/something is called firstborn of something yet they themselves aren't part of the group they're firstborn of.

Three verses after Col 1:15 in v18 Jesus is called "the firstborn from the dead", which again means he's is/was part of the group that he is called firstborn of. You would call someone mad if they tried to convince you that Jesus was called the "firstborn from the dead" yet never died.

You assume firstborn means preeminent in Col 1:15, there is no reason not to understand it in the temporal sense over the preeminent sense. I accept both sense at the same time.

---------------

I thought I was on your naughty list, you have some questions you need to answer for:

Hebrew 2 states God subjected "all things" under Man/Adam feet and went so far as to say that "God left nothing that is not subject to him". So lets see if your argument remains consistent when you answer this, when God subject "all things" under Man/Adams feet and left "NOTHING that is NOT" subject to him, was God himself subjected to man, since he too is no doubt part of all things, and are the Angels subjected to man since they as well are part of all things?

 

[musterion]

The adjective "firstborn" in Col 1:15 is part of the partitive genitive clause, which means Jesus is is PART OF the group which he is defined as 'KTISEWS' (Creation).

There isn't single example in the bible where someone is "firstborn" of the group and yet not part of the group they're labelled firstborn of.

-The firstborn of beast is a beast.
-The firstborn of Pharoah is a member of Pharoah's family.
-The firstborn of Israel is an Israelite.
-The firstborn of the humans is human

Thus, if Jesus is firstborn of creation he must be part of creation. This is basic language and irrefutable, show me a single example in the bible where someone/something is called firstborn of something yet they themselves aren't part of the group they're firstborn of.

Three verses after Col 1:15 in v18 Jesus is called "the firstborn from the dead", which again means he's is/was part of the group that he is called firstborn of. You would call someone mad if they tried to convince you that Jesus was called the "firstborn from the dead" yet never died.

You assume firstborn means preeminent in Col 1:15, there is no reason not to understand it in the temporal sense over the preeminent sense. I accept both sense at the same time.

2 Cor 5:16 is the key to your way out of confusion.

 

[NWL]

2 Cor 5:16 is the key to your way out of confusion.

Explain.

 

[NWL]

3. If you are arguing that titles of identification are not used for identification, then what is the point of using those titles?

Because titles do not overrule context. There are hundreds of titles that are applied to the YHWH, "God" being one of them. "God" is a title that is typical reserved for YHWH, yet how many times to we see it applied to angels, men and even Satan (2 Cor 4:4). Satan is called "ho theos", "the God" of the world. Would it be logical to assume that this title, "ho theos" which is typically reserved for YHWH alone shows Satan is Jehovah. I think not! Titles are used for identification but only as far as context permits, which is exactly my argument.

The term "first and last" in essence means "only", for example, Adam was "the first and last" human created from the dust of the earth, he was the only one made in that way. But if one was to refer to Adam in such way it in no way would imply he is Jehovah himself since the context explains in what sense he is the first and the last.

My reasoning was based on context, as earlier showed, whenever Jehovah is referred to as the "first and the last" (only) of something, that something always relates to his sovereignty as God. I would not not go as far to say the first and the last is a title in the same manner as "Christ", "most high" or "almighty", since such expression relate to single individuals in scripture. If I asked you to identify who I have in mind when I say "king of kings" you might assume Jesus, since people accept the term "kings of kings" as a tile of Jesus, yet scripture identifies Artaxerxes as also being a "king of Kings". I can say the same thing in regards to Ehud when it mentions savior (Judges 3:15), despite their being only one savior according to scripture (Isaiah 43:11).

If these titles, namely "Savior" and "King of kings" can be applied to both God and men but in different senses, then is it really a stretch to claim that the term "first and the last" which on a basic level means "only", can be applied to Jesus and Jehovah but with very different meanings? I think not, especially when the context agrees with me, a point you never addressed.

4. If Jesus was "the first and the last" in relation to death and resurrection, then you and I are without hope of eternal life, and this defies Paul's statement that according to the scriptures he believes in the resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust. But this isn't what Jesus says: he does not say "I am the first alive and I am the last to be made alive" which would be wrong on BOTH counts. Even if you changed that to "I am the first to live forevermore and the last to live forevermore" that would still be wrong. Without some other qualifier it isn't an adjective, it's a title, and that title already has specific meaning

I didn't explain my position well enough. Again, Jesus was the first person who was raised by the father directly, nowhere in scripture do we find a resurrection performed by the Father other than to Jesus. All other resurrections have been done by apostles, prophets or Jesus himself. Again, the only person ever recorded to have been resurrection by the Father was Jesus, he was the first. Furthermore, since the the resurrection the Father passed all judging and resurrection responsibility (Heb 5:9) to Jesus and it is by means of Jesus all judged worthy will get a resurrection, the Father resurrects no one. The last resurrection ever performed by the father was on Jesus. So Jesus is the "first and the last" in the sense he was the first and last person to be resurrected by the Father as the context of Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8 show. All other persons now are and will be resurrected by means of Jesus.

Jesus certainly is one who is and was and it coming. Which part of that do you dispute? He certainly is, as he is speaking when he allows John to bow down before him and worship (which the angels in that same Revelation forbid), and he certainly was, and he is certainly coming, as the book concludes "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Rev 22:20).

Jesus is to come, and the Father too is also coming. Since the Father is God he does not go directly but sends his son to do his bidding, it's the perks of the job.

For example, the Father was the one who came to earth in Mary, how can I say this? Because Jesus himself stated John 5:43 "I have come in the name of my Father", the Father didn't literally come to the earth, but as Gods agent Jesus acted in Gods behalf and did as the Father commanded. Jesus explained "whoever sees me sees also the One who sent me", why because Jesus was Gods messenger.

Likewise, the Father YHWH is the one who is coming in the ultimate sense, it is Jesus who is coming in the literal sense.

You seemed to ignore what basic scripture shows and yet still try to defend something that is undefendable. Jesus simply cannot be the one mentioned in Rev 1:8 as I've already mentioned, you did not address this point. He is without doubt mentioned as a separate person from "the one who is, was and is to come" in Rev 1:4,5. I could go on to show you how the "the one who is, was and is to come" the almighty goes and sits on the throne in the later chapters and has "the lamb/Jesus" come and take the scroll from the one who sits on the throne if you like, it is a futile point to try and argue my friend.

Besides that, if we were to consistently apply your logic, there is no name or title that can be used for identification in the whole scripture, including "Almighty" or "Jesus" or "Jehovah." Names and titles cannot be nonsensical and without consistent meaning or they loose all purpose.

We can, by context. If a verse says the frog is God almighty among the frogs, we wouldn't conclude that the frog is God almighty to everyone, but only to frogs since the context is clear. The context is the deciding factor, not the title. Also, Jesus and Jehovah aren't titles, they're personal names.

You alleged that the form of address meant separate persons, but the evidence within Revelation itself counters that allegation. It plainly does say that Jesus is the one who is coming. "And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me" and "Surely I come quickly." Jesus is obviously the one who is coming.

I did not "allege" I clearly demonstrated the fact. Your argument is not an argument, you're in effect saying, I'll ignore Rev 1:4,5 separation of Jesus from "the one who is, was, and is to come" since scripture says "he's coming". This is poor reasoning if reasoning at all! How can Jesus be separate from the the "one who is, was, and is to come" if he is that person, address the point!

It's 0100hours here so don't have time to address all your points, I'll attempt the rest another day. Excuse me if my post is a mess.

 

[musterion]

Explain.

First, read Ephesians ch. 3 and Romans 16:25.

 

[Rosenritter]

And did a person make that script? It's still a group of people you're lying to, who set up their policies of no one under a certain age may use their account. You're lying to them, not a script that can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood.

So in this scenario, if I lied to the script, I lied to the programmer?

Acts 5:3-4 KJV
(3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
(4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

That's why Acts 5:3-4 isn't proof that the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) is a person. Lying to to Holy Ghost is lying to God, but as you just confirmed in your judgment of my example, you can lie to a force or an inanimate object and that also constitutes lying to that which uses that force or object.

(You asked for an example...)