You're a liar or a fool or both.
"Ad Hominem" is not a term that is synonymous with "calling someone names", it's a form of argument. It's a fallacious form of argument but a form nonetheless. It happens when someone either states directly or implies that someone's position is false on the basis of their stupidity or whatever other pajorative they've used. I have made no such argumnent. The fact that I can make right judgments about your mental state and feel free to comment on that state has nothing to do with my argument against your position.
In short, if you're going to try and act like you're the smartest man in the room, you might want to maintain a proper understanding of the multisyllablic words you attempt to use in a sentence.
It very embarrassing when someone has the internet at their fingertips and still gets the definition of words wrong. Ad hominem doesn't only or
typically, as you stated, relate to when someone makes a claim that the other party position is false based on his stupidity. I maintain and still express that you are using your shock and mocks to attack my character, wittingly or unwittingly it doesn't matter, instead of dealing with the argument I laid out as you were unable to answer my previous question.
Google - dictionary
Ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction)
directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Wikipedia
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum
ad hominem,
typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,
Cambridge Dictionary
Ad hominem - (of a
criticism, etc.)
directed against a person, rather than against what that person says
Dictonary.com
Ad hominem -
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
if you're going to try and act like you're the smartest man in the room, you might want to maintain a proper understanding of the multisyllablic words you attempt to use in a sentence.
Maintain I'm the smartest person in the room? I've never stated or have implied this. You are the one that should learn the basic meaning of words or a least do your homework if you attempt to try and pull someone up on the dentition of something and you yourself get it wrong.
No, there were no questions to answer that didn't presuppose your premise. No one with any brain will ever answer such questions because they'd have to concede your side of the debate to even address them. Instead, I crushed your premise to powder by doing nothing at all but quoting the scripture and letting everyone read it for themselves. That, and pointing out that your own argument used evidence that proves your position wrong as if it proves the opposite. Which, by the way, is a neat tactic unless you're dealing with someone who knows how to both read and think clearly.
It's a stupid question!
You have above claimed my positions pre-supposed hence why you won't answer my question because it lies on a false premise, I will show how this is wrong and it's just you being in denial about what scripture plainly states and you being unable to answer the question that has demolished your understanding of the identity of the A&O in one swoop.
I've made an observation about scripture, namely the A&O in Rev 1:8 also has the title "the one who is, was, and is coming", this is clearly not pre-supposed as Rev 1:8 clearly states "
“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.”
I've made another observation, namely, an Angel sends blessing to John and others in Rev 1,4,5 and states who the blessing are from saying
"John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: 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, and from Jesus Christ".
It is John who mentions
"the one who is, was and is coming" and separate from
"Jesus Christ", please show me how this is PRE-SUPPOSED for you to claim I have pre-supposed my premise? I am the one taking the context of Rev 1:4,5 which precedes Rev 1:8 and applying to the context to Rev 1:8. If John writes that
"the one who is, was and is coming" as separate from
"Jesus Christ" in v4,5
and then I read v8, one can only use the context of v4,5 to understand who or who is NOT speaking in v8. You, on the other hand, are reading v8 apart from v4,5, then ignore what it says and claim I'm presupposing something despite it clearly being written. You are simply making up excuses as you are unable to deal with the question, you are blinding yourself from the truth, you are hardening your own heart.
This is the ridiculous question that you've been crying about no one answering? Really?
This is one of many many question people are unable to answer, there is no list I keep, it's just in normal conversation I pose questions in relation to what the topic is, people such as yourself realize the conundrum they're in and do their best to make an excuse to not answer the question. You, for example, are claiming I've pre-supposed something despite it clearly being written and therefore refuse to deal with the question, you think throwing more and more evidence into the mix will somehow detangles the contradiction when it does not.
Do you understand what the Trinity doctrine teaches? Have I been wasting my time debating the Trinity with a slobber mouthed moron who doesn't even understand what the Trinity doctrine is?!
In fact, I will not answer your question until you answer that one. In fact, I will not post another word in response to anything you say unless it includes a direct answer to the question "What does the doctrine of the Trinity teach?"
What does our topic of the idenitity of Rev 1:8 and the A&O have anything to do with the trinity? There is nothing I've said which has seemed to show a lack of understanding of the trinity nor does the topic in hand rely on it. I see this as nothing more than a smokescreen attempt to either deflect and change topic or you finding an excuse to get out of talking to me without losing face. I will play along with your game nonetheless.
The Trinity doctrine teaches there is one God who is three-person, namely the Father, Son and HS. These three persons are three distinct persons all of them forming the one God having a single divine nature. All three persons are co-equal, co-eternal one in essence, nature, power, action and will. I keep a picture of the below in my bible as I often have to teach trinitarians what they themselves are meant to believe about the trinity.
NWL said:
1) Why does the apostle [John] show that Jesus is separate from the "one who is, was and is coming" in v4,5, namely the A&O, if he is the "one who is, was and is coming" in v8?
Clete said:
Then explain why in the following "
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,and from Jesus Christ" its says
"and from Jesus" if Jesus is the
“the One who is and who was and who is coming”
?
[1]What does it prove? What do you think it proves?
[2]Who is the root of David if not God?
[3]Who do you say is the Root of David if not God and what could that phrase possibly mean in regards to a person that didn't exist until a thousand years after David died?!
1) Nothing, hence why I said it proves nothing and stated if you think it does explain how and I give a reply.
2) Why do you believe the root of David has to refer to God? Where are your scriptural reasons as to why it
has to refer to God.
3) Jesus is the root of David, to be the "root" of someone relates to being their offspring, this is especially clear in the case of Jesus as Rev 22:16 has Jesus himself stating
"I am the root and the descendant of David and the bright morning star". What you are doing is presupposing Jesus is the one God and then claiming God is the root of David. I do not deny Jesus is the root of David I deny he is the one God.
NWL said:
I believe Jesus is the Root of David, this doesn't prove he's the trinity, the one God or the A&O.
Clete said:
Saying it doesn't make it so.
I don't get why you made this comment. Jesus is the root of David, this is clear from the bible, you yourself accept this. Furthermore, you're correct, just because I said "Jesus being the root of David doesn't prove the trinity, he's the one God or A&O" doesn't make it so
just because I said it, hence why I asked you to show how it does, you have given no explanation as to how it does so can only presume it does not. Your statement was pointless.
All you have to do is read it. You don't need one single syllable more than what I quoted to fully understand what is being said.
Revelation 5:5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.”
Revelation 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
Jesus claims to be both that which came before and that which came after, BOTH the Root AND the Offspring of David.
It's as perfectly crystal clear as it can possibly be to anyone who can read.
You have a clear misunderstanding of the understanding of being root of someone. There isn't a scholar, church or theologian today that writings I have read or know of that understands "root of David", "root of Jesse" or root of anyone to mean anything other than
being a descendant of someone. Notice what all of these esteemed Trinitarians scholars say regarding Jesus being the root of David and Jesse:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
A root of Jesse.—Strictly, the root, or, root-shoot of Jesse, as in
Proverbs 5:5—i.e,.
the expected descendant of Jesse’s line, which, to bring out its intimate connection with the founder of the line, and to distinguish it from all other collateral branches, is identified with the very root, or first shoot, of the line itself.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Jesus the Root of David - Not the Root of David in the sense that David sprung from him as a tree does from a root, but in the sense that
he himself was a "root-shoot" or sprout from David, and had sprung from him as a shoot or sprout springs up from a decayed and fallen tree
There shall be a root -
A descendant, or one that should proceed from him when he was dead.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
root of Jesse—meaning,
not "He from whom Jesse sprang," but "He that is sprung from Jesse" (that is, Jesse's son David)—see Re 22:16.
root …
offspring of David—appropriate title here where assuring His Church of "the sure mercies of David," secured to Israel first, and through Israel to the Gentiles. Root of David, as being Jehovah; the offspring of David as man.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
""and there shall be a root of Jesse";
the meaning is, , "which goes out from the root of Jesse", according to
Isaiah 11:1, for "Jesse" is the root
Meyer's NT Commentary
He is the root-shoot of Jesse,
because Jesse is the root from which He springs
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
[the root and the offspring of David] He bears the former title in
Revelation 5:5, where see note. The latter is substantially
the same as the familiar one, “the Son of David.”
Jesus as the root of David means he is the descendant of David and does not that he was the One God who preceded and established David, you do not understand basic bible language, no wonder I was perplexed at your reasoning of Jesus being God because he was the "root of David".
I quoted the relevant passages. Who else in the bible was raised from the dead besides Jesus?
Lazarus? Are you suggesting that these letters to the seven churches were dictated by Lazarus? Maybe it was Tabitha! Peter raised Tabitha from the dead in Acts 9, maybe it was her!
In all, I think there are ten different instances where a person or group of people were raised from the dead in the bible, including Jesus Christ. If it wasn't Jesus dictating those letters to John then who was it?
That's another question I'll insist on getting a direct answer to before this goes any further. We'll see who answers questions around here and who doesn't.
How can you insist on getting a direct answer when you don't answer mine?
You asked
"Who else in the bible was raised from the dead besides Jesus", as you stated there were a number of people that were, you gave the number 10 and trust you know that much about the bible for that to be correct. However, I do not understand your point or where you're going with this so please elaborate, what does the number of people being resurrected have to do with anything we are talking about?
Except that it wasn't God the Father that was dead and is now alive forevermore. Good greif you're stupid. Why am I wasting this much time with you? Did you even read my post or the passages that I quoted?
You once stated I
"resorted to condescension and stupidity rather than anything honest or even rationally coherent", so far you've been the only one whose shown a stupid attitude, been condescending and ignore rational argument (Rev 1:4,5 and my argument), you
are the person you described me to be. Nonetheless, let me continue.
You are piecing together different titles and assuming they are the same, I can understand why you think I'm stupid as it's your misuse and ignorance of the text and my difference of opinion that is leading you to believe my points don't make sense, let me make myself clear and expand on where we went wrong.
You believe the titles "first and last" and "alpha and Omega" are synonymous, they are not, when Jesus is called "the first and last" the context of the title is about is death and resurrection, both Rev 1:18 and Rev 2:8 state:
(Revelation 1:18) “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever.
(Revelation 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:
If the F&L is synonymous with Jesus being the almighty and A&O its no doubt Jesus speaking in regards to his
divine nature, would it not, if this is the case and the F&L is synonymous with the A&O of Rev 1:8 then Almighty God in his divine nature is saying
"I BECAME DEAD", yet the almighty CANNOT die, how absurd. You cannot claim Jesus is speaking in is human nature because he clearly calls himself the F&L, which to you is synonymous with him being the A&O and the almighty. Jesus being the F&L
has to mean something different than the title of A&O, and again it is clear it does as the context of him being the first and him being the last has something to do with his death and his resurrection. Coincidently, Jesus is the only person and the
first person in the ENTIRE bible to be resurrected by the Father directly, and he is also the
last person to be resurrected by the Father directly, it is in this sense he is the first and the last, the title has nothing to do with the title of Alpha and Omega.
Quite the contrary. I'm the opposite of a King James Only dingbat conspiracy theorist.
Evidenced by the fact that I did not quote the King James Bible.
And whether you like it or not, Revelation 1:11 says what it says. I didn't write it and you can't prove that the phrase, which is used repeatedly throughout the chapter doesn't belong in verse 11. Someone with a one heck of a lot more knowledge, skill and expertise than either of us translated a bible into English that stood as the standard for the English language itself for centuries, used manuscripts that included “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and,".
Not only that, but it seems clear enough to me that it's just a repeat of what was already quoted in verse 8.
Finally, I don't even need verse 11! My argument doesn't rest solely on that one verse! I have the entire chapter 1 and verses throughout the book of Revelation to make this point not to mention the several passages in and indeed the entire theme of the Gospel of John!
The evidence is that Rev 1:11 where it mentions the A&O and F&L is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts and is classed as spurious. It is NOT a repeat of v8 as it inserts the title F&L and implies the F&L and the A&O are the same people despite literally no other text doing this.
Your case does not rest on one verse as your understanding contradicts Jesus being separate from the person speaking in v8, you have said next to nothing in regards to this so your case is hardly rested.
Saying it doesn't make it so. I have quoted the passages that directly contradict your doctrine.
Again, this ridiculous argument smacks its face against what the Trinity doctrine teaches, which you seem not to even understand.
Revelation 16:5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying:
“You are righteous, O Lord,
The One who is and who was and who is to be,
Because You have judged these things.
6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets,
And You have given them blood to drink.
For it is their just due.”
John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
The Apostle John just keep clubbing you over the head! (I bet you don't even see the point here.)
Indeed, that John 5 passage is another one where Jesus is claiming equality with the Father. The only ones who don't see it are the ones trying not to see it because of their pet doctrines.
Clete
You keep quoting scripture and leave it up to me to discern your position, stop doing this. Quote verses and
also explain your position. From the above, I've gathered because Rev 16:5,6 mentions the "one who is, who was and is coming" and speaks of him
judging and John 5:21 states God entrusted all judging to Jesus, that Jesus must be the one being spoken of in Rev 16:5,6 because it states he is
judging and Jesus now judges all.
Firstly, the judging in John 5:21,22 is in relation to the judging of the dead pertaining to the resurrection, this is clear by such passages as 2 Tim 4:1 that say
"Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead", the "judging" isn't in relation to general good judgment of any matter but the judging of the dead. Revelation 16:5 is about God's judgment on pouring the seven bowls on the earth, thus the judgments being mentioned are not referring to the same judging but two different types of judgment. So your attempt to link them by saying
"hey look Jesus now does all the judging of the dead" and
"hey look the one who is who was and is coming has good judgment because he chose to pour out the seven bowls" is not evidence they are the same person.
Moreover, even
if a verse stated the "one who is was and is coming judged someone" this still isn't evidence they are the same person, this is because despite the Father entrusting all the judging to Jesus HE STILL IS THE JUDGE, he simply judges
through Jesus as HE is the one who has appointed him, this is scriptural and irrefutable:
"..Because he [the Father] 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.”(Acts 17:31)
The Father judges the earth through his son whom he appointed as judge, so again even if the "one who is was and is coming" is stated as judging it doesn't prove that one is Jesus, since both the Father and "the person whom the father appointed" as judge, are judges and do judge.