Revelation 2:8

[Wootah]

8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Q: Who is the First and Last?
A: God.

If God is the first and last and also died and came to life again isn't that Jesus.

How does anyone get around this scriptural interpretation?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

Please demonstrate my question begging. Currently i can't see it.

How is my first premise false?

"Only God is called FnL."

Your first premise is what you need to prove. That's begging the question.

Not only that, but your first premise was proven false by Tam when she pointed out that human kings have been referred to with that same title.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

Please demonstrate my question begging. Currently i can't see it.

How is my first premise false?

"Only God is called FnL."

Your first premise is what you need to prove. That's begging the question.

Not only that, but your first premise was proven false by Tam when she pointed out that human kings have been referred to with that same title.

In logic, you don't have to prove premises. Your questions are no different to an atheist coming along to this thread and saying prove God exists first. In fact, you are doing it for the same reason the atheist is doing it. You can't dismiss the argument being presented and so you don't want to deal with it.

Anyway...

What do you think this means: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

It can only mean that whoever is the real first and the last is God.

[shnarkle]

In logic, you don't have to prove premises.

Sure, but that doesn't apply when the premise is what you're attempting to prove. Then you're simply begging the question. You're saying this "FnL" is referring to God, therefore when Jesus says it, it means that he is God. The problem is that your premise has been proven false by Tam who pointed out that others have used this title as well who you yourself wouldn't claim suggests that they're God.

I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

It can only mean that whoever is the real first and the last is God.

Not necessarily, and John's introduction elaborates on this idea as does Paul's expansion of the Shema. They both point out that God is the origin of existence and all that exists. The fact is that the origin of existence can't exist, therefore it is only through existence that God can exist which is why we see "apart from me there is no God" The fact is that the texts are making a very big distinction which no one wants to look at. They are all pointing out that God can't exist except through the word/Christ. This is how God is manifest, but manifestations aren't essentially who God is, as God is the origin of these manifestations. A theophany isn't really God at all, but revelations from God. To conflate the two is to confuse cause and effect, or at the very least the origin with the means.

Paul is clearly pointing out that God is "OF WHOM", while Christ is "BY WHOM" all things come into existence. God is explicitly associated with the origin of what exists while Christ is clearly associated with the means of what exists. For all practical intents and purposes, Christ might as well be God as there is no God beside him because all that exists exists in or through him. This doesn't negate the fact that God can only exist in the word, which is what allows God to be made manifest. Christ is the means by which God is manifest.

If it wasn't important to note this distinction, John and Paul wouldn't have bothered to make it in the first place. Regardless, it disproves your argument. The first and last is the word of God, while the origin of existence is God, and the origin of existence can't logically be existence itself.

[tam]

Peace to you both,


Just to be clear, I did not say that other men have been called by the title, the First and Last.

I said simply that two individuals sharing the same title does not mean that they must be the same person (or the same God).

I used King Nebuchadnezzar and 'king of kings' as an example to prove my point. Sharing that title/description does not make Nebuchadnezzar the same person as Christ (who has written on HIS thigh "King of kings and Lord of lords").




Peace to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[shnarkle]

Peace to you both,


Just to be clear, I did not say that other men have been called by the title, the First and Last.

I said simply that two individuals sharing the same title does not mean that they must be the same person (or the same God).

I used King Nebuchadnezzar and 'king of kings' as an example to prove my point. Sharing that title/description does not make Nebuchadnezzar the same person as Christ (who has written on HIS thigh "King of kings and Lord of lords").




Peace to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Right, thanks for the clarification. Christ is king of kings, but the title nor his acceptance of the title isn't what makes or proves that he is king of kings or lord of lords, as is evidenced by Nebuchadnessar's acceptance of the title. Which, if I read your post correctly, is what you were pointing out.

The same goes for God being described as "incomparable", or not having an image except through Christ. If that be the case, then the revealed God of the bible cannot be revealed except through Christ. This is why the bible is commonly referred to as "the word of God"; or "God's word". The fact is that it is literally a book, an anthology of books. Regardless of what or who the form is only through Christ. Therefore the only place one can place a title is upon Christ, yet the biblical authors are careful to point out that these titles must be properly distinguished, and while Christ is the means of distinguishing the two, God is the origin.

[Wootah]

In logic, you don't have to prove premises.

Sure, but that doesn't apply when the premise is what you're attempting to prove. Then you're simply begging the question. You're saying this "FnL" is referring to God, therefore when Jesus says it, it means that he is God. The problem is that your premise has been proven false by Tam who pointed out that others have used this title as well who you yourself wouldn't claim suggests that they're God.

I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

It can only mean that whoever is the real first and the last is God.

Not necessarily, and John's introduction elaborates on this idea as does Paul's expansion of the Shema. They both point out that God is the origin of existence and all that exists. The fact is that the origin of existence can't exist, therefore it is only through existence that God can exist which is why we see "apart from me there is no God" The fact is that the texts are making a very big distinction which no one wants to look at. They are all pointing out that God can't exist except through the word/Christ. This is how God is manifest, but manifestations aren't essentially who God is, as God is the origin of these manifestations. A theophany isn't really God at all, but revelations from God. To conflate the two is to confuse cause and effect, or at the very least the origin with the means.

Paul is clearly pointing out that God is "OF WHOM", while Christ is "BY WHOM" all things come into existence. God is explicitly associated with the origin of what exists while Christ is clearly associated with the means of what exists. For all practical intents and purposes, Christ might as well be God as there is no God beside him because all that exists exists in or through him. This doesn't negate the fact that God can only exist in the word, which is what allows God to be made manifest. Christ is the means by which God is manifest.

If it wasn't important to note this distinction, John and Paul wouldn't have bothered to make it in the first place. Regardless, it disproves your argument. The first and last is the word of God, while the origin of existence is God, and the origin of existence can't logically be existence itself.

Tam is defining words as she needs to in order to preserve her theology. That is what I am showing her in my discussions with her. If God is the first and the last and Jesus is not the first and the last then revelations 2:8 is blasphemy.

As for you, I found the above nonsensical. I don't have a reply to it. At best I would say you are splitting hairs.

You wrote: " therefore it is only through existence that God can exist". How should I respond? Currently, it seems so evidently self-refuting that I can only highlight it for you.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 46 by Wootah]

You wrote: " therefore it is only through existence that God can exist". How should I respond? Currently, it seems so evidently self-refuting that I can only highlight it for you.

God isn't existence. The word exists, but God is the origin of the word. The origin of existence doesn't exist. If it did, it wouldn't be the origin. This is so self evident it needn't be pointed out, but evidently you don't seem to understand this logical necessity. Paul points out that God is "OF WHOM" all things exist. God is the origin of everything that exists. Again, the origin of existence can't be existence.

John's introduction doesn't begin with: "In the beginning was God" does it???

Nope, and while the terms "origin" and "beginning" are usually thought of as synonymous that is only the case when dealing with "things". The origin is synonymous with the source which needn't be conflated with "beginning". The source of existence can't exist as it would no longer be the source; it would exist.

The source or origin of existence cannot exist in and of itself, it would no longer be the source, and we would have an infinite regression. The authors of scripture don't have that problem. They point out that the source of existence is God, and we no longer need to pretend that we're under the false impression that eternal existence is a trait or characteristic of God because the biblical authors have set us straight

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 47 by shnarkle]

Ok you've defeated me. Here stands one way to overcome the plain writing of the Bible.

Here is another thread I created to try to explain the issues with your theology.

viewtopic.php?t=34235&highlight=

[onewithhim]

8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Q: Who is the First and Last?
A: God.

If God is the first and last and also died and came to life again isn't that Jesus.

How does anyone get around this scriptural interpretation?

Those that believe that Jesus is God Almighty (in spite of an avalanche of Scriptures that show he is not) are the ones that get around the actual facts concerning that verse.

Look at an Interlinear Bible. You will observe that in that verse "the First and the Last" is not from the Greek "Alpha and Omega." It might mean that, but the words are not "Alpha and Omega." That clues us in to the fact that "the First and the Last" has another inference and does not show that Jesus is the "Alpha and Omega." If he were, those Greek letters would be there in that verse. "Alpha and Omega" refer only to God, Jehovah (the Father). He is the Source of everything that exists. Jesus Christ is the means by which Jehovah has saved the world, and it is to him we owe the highest respect as the First to be working by his Father's side, and the Last one to be recognized as the life-giving mighty person that he is.

Further research would be helpful. Do you have an Interlinear Bible?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 49 by onewithhim]

No one is talking about alpha and omega except you.

I use biblegateway for bible references mostly.

Anyway how about the topic?