NWL
Active member
Out of the thirteen questions/points I made you managed to respond back to the first three.
I assume your answer in the affirmative includes yourself.
(2 Thess 2:14) "..He called you to this through our gospel, that you might SHARE IN THE GLROY of our Lord Jesus Christ.."
(John 17:22) "..I have GIVEN THEM THE GLORY that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.."
We've already been through the above, with you failing to address the point above previously, hopefully, we'll make some leeway this time around. Remember, I've previously claimed that Trinitarians use texts such as Isaiah 42:8 as evidence Jesus is YHWH, the argument goes like this, "YHWH doesn't share his glory with anyone, Jesus shares YHWH's glory, therefore Jesus is YHWH". You also seem to share this sentiment as you have above confirmed you believe that someone sharing YHWH glory implies that person is YHWH themselves. However, verses such as John 17:22, 2 Thes 2:14, 2 Cor 3:18, and 1 Peter 5:10, among others, all say followers of christ 'share' God's glory. If your reasoning remains consistent then you'd be forced to admit followers of christ are YHWH too as they share God's glory, either that, or you'll have to admit that when people who are nowhere identified as YHWH share God's glory it doesn't necessitate that they themselves are YHWH. I'm very eager and interested to hear your response.
So which is it Lon, are followers of Christ who also share God's glory YHWH themselves, as your reasoning would imply, or, does sharing God's glory not necessitate that the person(s) sharing glory are YHWH themselves?
Again, I assume your answer in the affirmative includes yourself? if so, then please explain why other beings are called G-gods (Elohim), remember, in Ps 8:5 angels are referred to as "elohim" as confirmed by the inspired writer of Hebrews 2:7, and as you previously admitted, God 'so-called' other beings 'gods' according to 1 Cor 8:4-5, so explain why these beings that have been so-called god by the one God are not the one God according to your reasoning.
The keywords that you have not been able to comprehend in my question are "which after being scrutinized", I've previously explained that your reference to Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary about Rev 3:14 was not sufficient evidence to suggest that "arche" should be understood as beginner. Firstly nowhere does Jamieson-Fausset-Brown explain why it should be understood as beginner, they allude to col 1:15-18 which in itself doesn't say Jesus is the originator of creation, and whats more, Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:5,6 clearly say the Father was the originator and beginner of creation and that it was through Jesus creation was made, NOT that it was him who it was from, a point you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge. This is why I re-asked the same question with the modification "which after being scrutinized".
I understand why you think I've lied, but after my above explanation, it should be clear I have not. My question/point still stands: You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown lack of true exegesis, Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:4,5, and John's writing style and usage of the word), gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The questions/points you've failed to address:
You haven’t shown me anywhere where the Greek word “arche” means beginner, despite you assuming this meaning in Rev 3:14.
You’ve given me no reason that when Prov 8:22 says “YHWH made me at the beginning of his way”, that this was not in relation to Jesus. All you can say it that is “Ambiguous”, whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you don’t even attempt to speak about the evidence I brought to the table in relation to it, why? I can only assume its because you reject the rendering ONLY because it does not fit your biblical worldview despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simply replying, “Ambiguous”, is a fool’s answer imo.
You’ve given me no explanation how Jesus is the part of the group of creation according to Col 1:15, as you have admitted, but not a created being himself despite him being ‘PART’ of creation since he’s the firstborn.
You’ve given me no answer how Jesus is the Father according to Isaiah 9:6, yet is a separate person from the Father according to the trinity doctrine.
You haven’t clearly articulated what person of the trinity creation is ‘from’ according to 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2, despite you clearly understanding and stating it is through Jesus in the texts.
You’ve nowhere told me if God and the Angels were part of the “all things” since “nothing was left not subjected when subjecting all things under man” in Hebrews 2:8. This question was posed to you as you denied Jesus could be part of creation by the wording of John 1:3. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.
You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.
You have not answered if it's possible that an eternal God can have an origin.
Did God so-call other beings "gods" according to 1 Cor 8:5?
Explain why John 1:1c has to be translated that the Word "was God" according to the grammar, also explain how it's possible that John 1:1 is definite in its sense but somehow doesn't contradict that Jesus was with the God he apparently was.
NWL said:
I assume your answer in the affirmative includes yourself.
(2 Thess 2:14) "..He called you to this through our gospel, that you might SHARE IN THE GLROY of our Lord Jesus Christ.."
(John 17:22) "..I have GIVEN THEM THE GLORY that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.."
We've already been through the above, with you failing to address the point above previously, hopefully, we'll make some leeway this time around. Remember, I've previously claimed that Trinitarians use texts such as Isaiah 42:8 as evidence Jesus is YHWH, the argument goes like this, "YHWH doesn't share his glory with anyone, Jesus shares YHWH's glory, therefore Jesus is YHWH". You also seem to share this sentiment as you have above confirmed you believe that someone sharing YHWH glory implies that person is YHWH themselves. However, verses such as John 17:22, 2 Thes 2:14, 2 Cor 3:18, and 1 Peter 5:10, among others, all say followers of christ 'share' God's glory. If your reasoning remains consistent then you'd be forced to admit followers of christ are YHWH too as they share God's glory, either that, or you'll have to admit that when people who are nowhere identified as YHWH share God's glory it doesn't necessitate that they themselves are YHWH. I'm very eager and interested to hear your response.
So which is it Lon, are followers of Christ who also share God's glory YHWH themselves, as your reasoning would imply, or, does sharing God's glory not necessitate that the person(s) sharing glory are YHWH themselves?
Again, I assume your answer in the affirmative includes yourself? if so, then please explain why other beings are called G-gods (Elohim), remember, in Ps 8:5 angels are referred to as "elohim" as confirmed by the inspired writer of Hebrews 2:7, and as you previously admitted, God 'so-called' other beings 'gods' according to 1 Cor 8:4-5, so explain why these beings that have been so-called god by the one God are not the one God according to your reasoning.
The keywords that you have not been able to comprehend in my question are "which after being scrutinized", I've previously explained that your reference to Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary about Rev 3:14 was not sufficient evidence to suggest that "arche" should be understood as beginner. Firstly nowhere does Jamieson-Fausset-Brown explain why it should be understood as beginner, they allude to col 1:15-18 which in itself doesn't say Jesus is the originator of creation, and whats more, Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:5,6 clearly say the Father was the originator and beginner of creation and that it was through Jesus creation was made, NOT that it was him who it was from, a point you've repeatedly failed to acknowledge. This is why I re-asked the same question with the modification "which after being scrutinized".
I understand why you think I've lied, but after my above explanation, it should be clear I have not. My question/point still stands: You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown lack of true exegesis, Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:4,5, and John's writing style and usage of the word), gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The questions/points you've failed to address:
You haven’t shown me anywhere where the Greek word “arche” means beginner, despite you assuming this meaning in Rev 3:14.
You’ve given me no reason that when Prov 8:22 says “YHWH made me at the beginning of his way”, that this was not in relation to Jesus. All you can say it that is “Ambiguous”, whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you don’t even attempt to speak about the evidence I brought to the table in relation to it, why? I can only assume its because you reject the rendering ONLY because it does not fit your biblical worldview despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simply replying, “Ambiguous”, is a fool’s answer imo.
You’ve given me no explanation how Jesus is the part of the group of creation according to Col 1:15, as you have admitted, but not a created being himself despite him being ‘PART’ of creation since he’s the firstborn.
You’ve given me no answer how Jesus is the Father according to Isaiah 9:6, yet is a separate person from the Father according to the trinity doctrine.
You haven’t clearly articulated what person of the trinity creation is ‘from’ according to 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2, despite you clearly understanding and stating it is through Jesus in the texts.
You’ve nowhere told me if God and the Angels were part of the “all things” since “nothing was left not subjected when subjecting all things under man” in Hebrews 2:8. This question was posed to you as you denied Jesus could be part of creation by the wording of John 1:3. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.
You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.
You have not answered if it's possible that an eternal God can have an origin.
Did God so-call other beings "gods" according to 1 Cor 8:5?
Explain why John 1:1c has to be translated that the Word "was God" according to the grammar, also explain how it's possible that John 1:1 is definite in its sense but somehow doesn't contradict that Jesus was with the God he apparently was.
Last edited:
