Trinity Proof Scriptures

[Rosenritter]

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

No, that isn't more obvious. It's rather convoluted, and that's the first and only time I've heard anyone express that interpretation of the passage.

 

[way 2 go]

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...)

so you don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person ?

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

so you are non Trinitarian ?

 

[Aimiel]

I understand Jesus to be literally God in the flesh, worthy of worship, the same mind and character that created all things and not another, and I can see how "I and the Father are one" is not a proof of that. Supporting, yes, but not proof, because it can also be interpreted as "We are of one agreement and authority" which does not designate deity.

It so happens that I believe Jesus did mean it the sense of God-ship, but like many things he said in the gospels, it is said in a way that allows double meaning. It's because of that double-meaning that it doesn't prove that "Jesus is God" let alone a more detailed "Trinity" doctrine that would depend on first proving the former.

I believe that God does such things to make His Word contentious and controversial so that there is more discussion and argument. Jesus came to bring a sword. He didn't mean that He wanted us to slay everyone who won't accept The Gospel but He wants us to use The Sword of The Spirit of The Living God to preach, teach, admonish and edify. We argue His Truth and convince those who are willing to listen and learn. Others hear and maybe one day when they actually think about it: become converted in due season. :thumb:

 

[Aimiel]

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.

:blabla:

 

[Dartman]

No, that isn't more obvious. It's rather convoluted, and that's the first and only time I've heard anyone express that interpretation of the passage.

So, you can discern the meaning of the 5 word phrase, without context?
All you did in this post is contradict my statement, without ANY evidence, other than observing this is the first time you have heard it.

 

[Dartman]

Firstborn does NOT mean created.

Of course not, you are missing the point. It is the phrase; "of every CREATURE" that proves Jesus is also created!

Firstborn in this CONTEXT means PREEMINENT.

No, that's not what "Firstborn from the dead" means, "Firstborn from the dead" means Jesus was the first of MILLIONS of humans to be resurrected to Eternal Life! The REST of the righteous will be resurrected AFTER Christ's return.

The RESULT of Jesus being the firstborn, is that he HAS the preeminence.

BEFORE ALL THINGS is the CREATOR of ALL THINGS!

Paul qualifies the "all things" by two factors.
1) things that ARE (currently) in heaven, and ARE (currently) on earth.... so this isn't talking about before God anointed Jesus with power and authority, it is talking about the result of Christ's ministry.
2) THESE categories "dominions, powers, thrones and principalities". In other words, Paul is saying Jesus created the civilization that Paul and the Corinthian's lived in.
Col 1:13-18 13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself will come to have first place in everything.

 

[ok doser]

No, that isn't more obvious. It's rather convoluted, and that's the first and only time I've heard anyone express that interpretation of the passage.

he has a vivid imagination

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosenritter do you believe the Holy Spirit is a person ?

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

1. I don't always translate Spirit as breath (perhaps you are thinking of someone else.)

2. Do I believe the Holy Spirit is a person? Ultimately yes, but "person" can have more than one meaning. In the same sense as "our Father who art in heaven' is a person, which may not be the same meaning that "Trinitarian" means by person,

 

[glorydaz]

1. I don't always translate Spirit as breath (perhaps you are thinking of someone else.)

2. Do I believe the Holy Spirit is a person? Ultimately yes, but "person" can have more than one meaning. In the same sense as "our Father who art in heaven' is a person, which may not be the same meaning that "Trinitarian" means by person,

:chuckle:

 

[Idolater]

The Nicene creed is not taught by the apostles.

Says you.

It wasn't formulated in its original form until 325 CE and its revised form in 381 CE.

Everybody knows when it was committed to writing, which is wholly irrelevant to when its contents originated.

Also, "Apostolic" means attributed to the teachings of the Apostles, not what the Apostles literally taught.

It means both what the Apostles themselves taught, and what the Apostles themselves approved of that others taught, with the most prominent example being 2nd Peter 3:15-16 KJV, when Peter approves so much of what Paul wrote that he declared all Paul's epistles to be Scripture, and another example are the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written by non-Apostles, but were approved of by Apostles; Luke is very possibly what is always meant when Paul says, "My," or, "Our Gospel" (e.g. 2Ti2:8KJV, 2Th2:14KJV).

 

[clefty]

Says you.
Everybody knows when it was committed to writing, which is wholly irrelevant to when its contents originated.
It means both what the Apostles themselves taught, and what the Apostles themselves approved of that others taught, with the most prominent example being 2nd Peter 3:15-16 KJV, when Peter approves so much of what Paul wrote that he declared all Paul's epistles to be Scripture, and another example are the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written by non-Apostles, but were approved of by Apostles; Luke is very possibly what is always meant when Paul says, "My," or, "Our Gospel" (e.g. 2Ti2:8KJV, 2Th2:14KJV).

Paul was on trial by jews accusing him of teaching the customs that Moses delivered were changed...Paul actually made a vow to assure believing jews myraids of them STILL zealous of the Law that he did no such thing...

The ONLY count the jews had against him actually was that he taught the One crucified was resurrected and at the right hand of Yah...

For instance Acts 25 in front of Festus Paul had NO WITNESS to testify against him that he taught against the Law of Idolatry...imagine if Paul taught the Trinity...”no no NOT ONE God but three unique and seperate co eternal persons with seperate roles but yet one equal and mysterious being”

Not one witness could prove Paul taught this Idolatry against Yah Who sent a begotten Son a Messiah...as demonstrated and taught by OT and the NEW demonstrated by Him...

NOT ONE EPISTLE Paul wrote was submitted as evidence Paul taught that this triune 3 equal persons monstrosity had abolished the Law

Jews still HATE Yahushua considering Him an idol...and for His reminding them that it STILL IS ONE LAW alike for jews and goyim...His house a house of prayer for ALL nations...not just jews...that synagogue of satan...

Paul confirmed to the jews and Festus that he had done NO WRONG...no IDOLATRY...there was nothing to their charges against him...Acts 25:10-11...so off to Caesar he went...Rome LATER morphed Paul’s God into a 3 being construct...

The Synagogue of Satan still howls...”Yahushua changed the customs delivered by Moses!”...Luke proves that to be false testimony...

Rome later indeed boasted the authority to change both times and Law...and the whole world wonders after...except His people who come out of that babel...

 

[Dartman]

The Nicene creed is not taught by the apostles.

Says you.

Says history, which provides a wonderful timeline of the development of trinitarian theory, and the complete lack of ANY tenet unique to trinity, or oneness, being stated, explained or preached to ANY audience in the Scriptures, proves his point.

Everybody knows when it was committed to writing, which is wholly irrelevant to when its contents originated.

You are right that the idea had to precede the writing, and we don't know precisely when each of the authors, that commented on the developing theory of trinity, came to believe their doctrine, but we can discover when they lived, and and that gives us a close enough frame of reference for this discussion.

The doctrine of trinity was at work in Paul's time, but the apostles were able to delay it's growth. Paul knew it was coming, and was afraid because he knew the Church would "bear with" the "another Jesus"!

2 Cor 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

It means both what the Apostles themselves taught, and what the Apostles themselves approved of that others taught, with the most prominent example being 2nd Peter 3:15-16 KJV, when Peter approves so much of what Paul wrote that he declared all Paul's epistles to be Scripture, and another example are the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written by non-Apostles, but were approved of by Apostles; Luke is very possibly what is always meant when Paul says, "My," or, "Our Gospel" (e.g. 2Ti2:8KJV, 2Th2:14KJV).

Agreed!

 

[Rosenritter]

Because titles do not overall 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.

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 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.

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, nor the title. Also, Jesus and Jehovah aren't titles, they're personal names.

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.

Summarizing what you said here, then?

1. Names and titles cannot be used for identification. "The first and the last" is accepted as a title in one prophet but rejected in another. It's meaning must be invented under the standard of aligning with Unitarianism. By no means must the unique title "I am the first and the last" be interpreted as if it were a unique title. The Holy Spirit must have been unaware that this title was already taken.

"I am the first and the last" means "I am NOT "the first and the last?"

2. When Jesus says that He will raise the dead "I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54) and the scripture tells us that life and death are the sole realm of God "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up" (1 Sam 2:6) and "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; ... you conclude that He who claims this power as his own certainly cannot be God.

Only God can raise the dead + Jesus raises the dead = Jesus is not God?

(do you really think that Elijah and Paul raised the dead themselves?)



3. You admit that Jesus is coming, but because of a passage that says he is the Alpha and Omega and the first and the last and he is coming, you say that this cannot be Jesus. There must be a SECOND "Alpha and Omega' then? So you claim "The Father is coming" but NOT REALLY which is to satisfy "I am to come?"

He is coming means he is NOT coming?

To you realize how convoluted and artificial all of that sounds?

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...

Already addressed. You're just not listening. It is quite within the realm of speech to use multiple forms of address. If I was hailing you from afar, I might say "Hello from Andrew, and the staff at TOL, and Rosenritter..." and this would not turn Andrew and Rosenritter into two separate beings. Nor should one use that sentence in an attempt to turn the rest of the message inside out when it is filled with heavy-laden description of who Rosenritter actually is.

What you did was to take a statement and then jump to a conclusion, an unsupported conclusion, and then act as if your conclusion was fact. Then you disregarded all clarification based on your new "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!

He's not separated. That's your argument you've created for me... that you're inventing for the purpose of having an easier answer.

P.S. Would you like to rethink this answer below?
Matthew 27:50-53 KJV
(50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
(51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
(52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
(53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

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.

I think that your saying that prophets (like Elijah and Paul) raised the dead (thus it was not GOD raising the dead) is a bit absurd, but even then who would you say raised these dead that came out of the tombs? Jesus was not the FIRST that was raised to life without a human prophet nearby asking God for a miracle. Who would you say raised these saints? You're reduced "the first and the last" to be meaningless.


Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(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.

There's no point in Jesus identifying himself as Alpha and Omega, and the Almighty, and the first and the last, except for identification and clarification, specifically clarification on exactly this topic for the very precise reason of correcting the misunderstanding you're at right now. Which "Alpha and Omegas" are Christ in Revelation, and which are someone else?

 

[way 2 go]

1. I don't always translate Spirit as breath (perhaps you are thinking of someone else.)

2. Do I believe the Holy Spirit is a person? Ultimately yes, but "person" can have more than one meaning. In the same sense as "our Father who art in heaven' is a person, which may not be the same meaning that "Trinitarian" means by person,

:think:




Joh 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

 

[Rosenritter]

So, you can discern the meaning of the 5 word phrase, without context?
All you did in this post is contradict my statement, without ANY evidence, other than observing this is the first time you have heard it.

We aren't devoid of context. Your argument that we must remove all context so that we can then rationalize throwing away the clear meaning provided by the context is irrational.

When someone approaches someone else and says "My Lord" we don't invent silly logic that the person being addressed isn't being acknowledged as his Lord. Likewise, if that person were to instead say "My Lord and My God" we don't imagine that he is talking to an invisible second person .... especially when the context provides that there is no second person to be addressed. It doesn't say that he fell to his knees with his eyes closed in prayer and was rudely interrupted.

 

[Dartman]

Summarizing what you said here, then?

1. Names and titles cannot be used for identification. "The first and the last" is accepted as a title in one prophet but rejected in another. It's meaning must be invented under the standard of aligning with Unitarianism. By no means must the unique title "I am the first and the last" be interpreted as if it were a unique title. The Holy Spirit must have been unaware that this title was already taken.

This isn't an accurate representation of the position NWL posted. No one, NWL included is saying what you state here. Of course names and titles CAN be USED for identification, but CONTEXT is king. What CANNOT be done is, ASSUMING similarity, or even identical, names and titles PROVES the unique identity of the being. No one is REJECTING the title "first and last", BOTH Jesus, and his God, are the "first and last", each being is UNIQUE, in different ways. And so is Adam, and Abraham, and David, and you and me .... certainly not in the same way Jesus and his God are unique, but still we are all unique in SOME ways.

2. When Jesus says that He will raise the dead "I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54) and the scripture tells us that life and death are the sole realm of God "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up" (1 Sam 2:6) and "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; ... you conclude that He who claims this power as his own certainly cannot be God.

Jesus didn't merely "claim" the power. Jesus made it absolutely clear, he was GIVEN the power;
John 5:17-27 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh until now, and (now) I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

3. You admit that Jesus is coming, but because of a passage that says he is the Alpha and Omega and the first and the last and he is coming, you say that this cannot be Jesus. There must be a SECOND "Alpha and Omega' then? So you claim "The Father is coming" but NOT REALLY which is to satisfy "I am to come?"

There is a second "Alpha and Omega", and again, there are many more, for different reasons.

It is a phrase indicating uniqueness in SOME way.

Jesus alone can say:
Rev 1:18 .... I died, and behold I am alive forevermore

Jehovah/YHVH God, Christ's God, is the only one who can say:
Rev 1:8 ... which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Both Jesus, and his God, are coming to the earth. Jesus first, by more than 1,000 years, and Jehovah/YHVH God is coming AFTER He sends the holy city New Jerusalem to the earth.

 

[oatmeal]

Does the Bible refer to three distinct persons? Yes.

Is each of the three referred to, at some point, as God? Yes.

Does the Bible say there only one God? Yes.

The Trinity position aligns with with what the Bible says.

Actually, the Bible refers to many, many distinct persons

Adam is distinct from Eve who is distinct from God who is distinct from the serpent who is distinct from Cain, who is distinct from Abel......

Likewise The Father is distinct and different than the son of God, so it is clear they are not one entity but two distinct entities

Thus any scripture that seemingly, but does not actually, alludes to them being one identity, one entity is clearly being misunderstood by the reader.

 

[Dartman]

We aren't devoid of context. Your argument that we must remove all context so that we can then rationalize throwing away the clear meaning provided by the context is irrational.

You've got it backwards. I am demanding that the context BE included.
I am PROVING the absolute necessity of the context with my example.

There is no way you can be certain of the meaning of this virtually identical phrase, WITHOUT CONTEXT!

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

Still waiting for your admission that it is impossible to determine the meaning, without more context.

When someone approaches someone else and says "My Lord" we don't invent silly logic that the person being addressed isn't being acknowledged as his Lord.

Again, you have this backwards. Jesus approached Thomas, and ONLY AFTER Jesus proved his God had resurrected him, did Thomas exclaim "My Lord, and my God".

 

[Dartman]

Actually, the Bible refers to many, many distinct persons

Adam is distinct from Eve who is distinct from God who is distinct from the serpent who is distinct from Cain, who is distinct from Abel......

Likewise The Father is distinct and different than the son of God, so it is clear they are not one entity but two distinct entities

Thus any scripture that seemingly, but does not actually, alludes to them being one identity, one entity is clearly being misunderstood by the reader.

EXACTLY!!! :thumb:

 

[Rosenritter]

This isn't an accurate representation of the position NWL posted. No one, NWL included is saying what you state here. Of course names and titles CAN be USED for identification, but CONTEXT is king. What CANNOT be done is, ASSUMING similarity, or even identical, names and titles PROVES the unique identity of the being. No one is REJECTING the title "first and last", BOTH Jesus, and his God, are the "first and last", each being is UNIQUE, in different ways. And so is Adam, and Abraham, and David, and you and me .... certainly not in the same way Jesus and his God are unique, but still we are all unique in SOME ways.

Jesus didn't merely "claim" the power. Jesus made it absolutely clear, he was GIVEN the power;
John 5:17-27 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh until now, and (now) I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

There is a second "Alpha and Omega", and again, there are many more, for different reasons.

It is a phrase indicating uniqueness in SOME way.

Jesus alone can say:
Rev 1:18 .... I died, and behold I am alive forevermore

Jehovah/YHVH God, Christ's God, is the only one who can say:
Rev 1:8 ... which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Both Jesus, and his God, are coming to the earth. Jesus first, by more than 1,000 years, and Jehovah/YHVH God is coming AFTER He sends the holy city New Jerusalem to the earth.

It is a fair representation of his argument.

1. Accepts names and titles as identification except when it conflicts with the position he wishes to hold.

2. You are warping the passage out of its context. What do you think it would mean if Jesus said that he did his wonders apart from the power of God? Jesus was equal with God, not apart from God.

John 5:18 KJV
(18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Philippians 2:6 KJV
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Your premise is that Jesus is not equal with God. Both the unbelieving Jews and the inspired apostles (thus the Holy Spirit) says otherwise,.

3. He didn't actually say there were two Alpha and Omegas.. I was prompting whether that's the desperate (and absurd) solution he would seize upon. You're not actually doing him any favors by accepting that for him.

Regardless, "Alpha and Omega" is used parallel with "beginning and ending" and "first and the last" indicating that these are synonymous titles of reference. It doesn't seem very upright or consistent to wishy-wash them one way and then the other.

Revelation 1:8 KJV
(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 1:11 KJV
(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.

Revelation 21:6 KJV
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Revelation 22:12-13 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.

There are multiple problems with your explanation, one of which being that these are not descriptive phrases as they lack any other words to point to content. Another being that Alpha and Omega and beginning and the end and the first and the last not only sound like synonymous phrases, they are used in parallel in pairs and together in triplicate.

Maybe you should be lecturing Clark Kent as to how come he never gets pictures of Superman. Must be the glasses. Everyone knows Superman doesn't wear glasses.