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]

It might help to look at just what the title "the First and the Last" means. It means that everything originated with God and everything will end with him.

You're going to have to go beyond simple assertions to prove that one. To say "the last" doesn't mean or suggest the origin. It doesn't suggest God either. That's simply an assumption. One mustn't forget the context which states "I am the first and the last". When one is something that is also that they exist and they encompass all that exists, not just from the beginning, but to the end as well.

The titles of God ALWAYS speak to one of his attributes;

The point you are ignoring is that attributes are attributed by those doing the attributing, not God. God has no attributes, and no attributes can be attributed to God because God transcends attributes. There is no referent for God, therefore you can't attribute anything to what isn't there in the first place. The title is attributed to "the word" and this is explicitly what is being shown over and over again.

in this case, it speaks to his eternality.

It speaks of the eternity of "the word"

It's the equivalent of saying that he has always existed and always will exist.

Right, and existence has no origin. Given that the origin of everything is God, God can't be what exists. This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but sometimes the obvious goes unnoticed.

" Titles are not merely symbolic.[/quote]

If a title is a symbol, then by definition they can only signify what they are substituted for.

They testify to the very essence or nature of God.

And in the case of the biblical God the origin of existence testifies to an essence that cannot originate in existence.

They explain who he is.

No, the origin of existence explains who he isn't. God isn't the word. The texts plainly stated that "the word was God" Big difference!

God speaks of his eternality in the Book of Isaiah:

Yep, and one needs to be cognizant of the fact that possessive pronouns refer back to their respective nouns. They do not refer to themselves. God speaks and God speaks with his word, which is not him, but God's word. His eternity isn't God, it's God's eternity. God's eternity isn't who God is. God is not God's attributes. God's word is eternal, yet God's word is not God; it's God's word.

Are your words, you? Are the words you've typed on your computer screen who you are? They represent the thoughts you have on this subject, but even your thoughts aren't who you are. They are just your thoughts. You are not a thought. You aren't all the thoughts you will ever have.

"Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" (Is. 44:6).

Truer words, The word exists eternally and there can be nothing beside what exists, including God. God can only exist in, with, and through the word. God can only exist "in the beginning", "with the Word", and "through" Christ as there is no other way to God.

The last line is key -- God is the one and only God. There are no others.

Not exactly what it says. It says there are 'no others beside me"

But then we come to the Book of Revelation where Jesus is called the First and the Last in several verses. If God and only God is the First and the Last,

Not what it says. It states" I am the first and the last". "I am" is the first person singular verb to be. The verb to be refers to what is or exists and whatever exists can only exist through or by means of existence. Ad Paul points out "by Whom" are all things.

and if there is only ONE God

A God that cannot exist apart from the word which actually exists.

then non-Trinitarians should have a problem with Jesus bearing the exact same title as God with the understanding that Jesus himself is eternal.

Not at all. Christ is the only way the title can be born in the first place. The title can't be placed anywhere else except upon the image (Greek: "iekon" Icon) of God. There simply is no where else one can find God except through the Icon.

This, of course, is the problem that the Pharisees had every time Jesus made it known that he was God. They accused him of blasphemy for doing so (Matt. 26:65; Luke 5:21; John 10:33, for example).

This is a good point because it spotlights the fact that strict monotheism doesn't take into consideration the fact that a transcendent God cannot be worshipped in the first place, at least not objectively without an icon. Christ is that icon, they just didn't recognize him as such.

then we are left with three eternal beings -- but still there is only one God.

You're contradicting yourself or at the very least contradicting the texts because the origin of being cannot be a separate being. The origin can only "be" within the context of existence, and existence is synonymous with the word/Christ/the image/icon/symbol etc. Christ is the mediator. God is not the mediator. You're conflating the two. Christ is the mediator between transcendence and the created world. Only Christ can be revealed, and he reveals himself as the icon of God.

So how do we make sense of it all? We recognize that God is a Trinity. As such he is one Being who exists in three persons who are co-eternal.

Youre contradicting yourself again. You just said that God is "three beings" now you're saying he's "one Being". The fact is that God is synonymous with transcendence which is what the authors are saying everytime they point out that there is none beside him, or that he is "incomparible" etc.

By definition, a person is "a man, woman , or child...etc". And the only person in this equation is Christ. Furthermore, the word person comes from the word "persona" which is "a mask", and the only mask that can be worn by God is the image or Icon of God. The mask is not what is covered by the mask.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 10 by tam]

God did not die and come to life again, so this cannot be speaking about God.

God being the First and the Last does not mean that Christ is not also the First and the Last (except with regard to His Father).

He is certainly the First and the Last (only) begotten Son. I can think of other things as well.

This verse is speaking about Christ, not about His God (and Father).

We have a very simple title for God, the first and the last, in Isaiah and that title is repeated about the guy who died and came to live.

* I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
* These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Think about what you are implying in your reply. You are implying that the same title can have two different meanings when you want them to. With that reasoning you can choose to read even this line how you wish, 'apart from me there is no God' to include all the G O D Gods as well. The all caps Gods. It becomes arbitrary where you pick and choose what you want to reinterpret.

Can you understand that?

I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I see how it relates to what I posted. It sounds good though. I'd like to see you apply it to what I posted by placing it into what I posted. That might help.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 22 by shnarkle]

Are you talking to me or Tam?

What you posted was self contradictory. A thing cannot be incomparable and also relateable. That should end your theology for you and allow you to think anew.

Thhis thread is about a simple logical syllogism.

Only God is called FnL.
Jesus is called FnL.
Therefore Jesus is God.

[Overcomer]

shnarkle wrote:

You're going to have to go beyond simple assertions to prove that one. To say "the last" doesn't mean or suggest the origin. It doesn't suggest God either. That's simply an assumption. One mustn't forget the context which states "I am the first and the last". When one is something that is also that they exist and they encompass all that exists, not just from the beginning, but to the end as well.

I didn't say that "the last" suggests origin. And I used "the last" with "the first" so I don't understand why you're saying that I didn't. The two go together. In Greek, it's the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last letters of the Greek alphabet.

And it does refer to God. As I stated, God calls himself the First and the Last here:

"Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" (Is. 44:6).

shnarkle wrote:

Yep, and one needs to be cognizant of the fact that possessive pronouns refer back to their respective nouns. They do not refer to themselves. God speaks and God speaks with his word, which is not him, but God's word. His eternity isn't God, it's God's eternity. God's eternity isn't who God is. God is not God's attributes. God's word is eternal, yet God's word is not God; it's God's word.

But God didn't use a possessive pronoun in that verse from Isaiah. He used a personal pronoun. So your argument isn't applicable.

As for God not being his Word, the Bible calls Jesus the LIVING WORD, meaning that he embodies all that is written in it.

Bottom line: To say God is from the First to the Last is indeed a reference to the fact that he has always and always will exist. That's what the phrase means and it's not merely an assumption on my part. It's how the original Jewish and Christian audiences would have understood it. See here:

https://www.compellingtruth.org/alpha-and-omega.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/alpha-and-omega.html

shnarkle wrote:

The point you are ignoring is that attributes are attributed by those doing the attributing, not God. God has no attributes, and no attributes can be attributed to God because God transcends attributes. There is no referent for God, therefore you can't attribute anything to what isn't there in the first place. The title is attributed to "the word" and this is explicitly what is being shown over and over again.

As I stated, God is the one who declared himself to be the First and the Last. Are you suggesting that God did NOT say what that verse in Isaiah says he said? God is the one who reveals himself in Scripture.

What do you mean he "transcends" attributes? Are you trying to say that because he is God he transcends understanding? If so, that isn't true. We may not be able to know everything there is to know about God this side of heaven, but we can know some things about him because he has revealed those things to us in his Word and in the person of Jesus Christ who is the Living Word. And we can know something rightly without knowing something exhaustively.

And what do you mean there is no referent for God? Are you trying to say there is nothing like him on earth which we can refer to in an attempt to understand him? I agree that there is nothing in creation like him, but, as I said, he has made himself known. He created us to be in a personal relationship with him and we can't be in that relationship if he doesn't reveal something of who he is to us -- which he has done and continues to do through Scripture and through the Holy Spirit who helps us understand Scripture.


shnarkle wrote:

Right, and existence has no origin. Given that the origin of everything is God, God can't be what exists. This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but sometimes the obvious goes unnoticed.

So you're saying that God doesn't exist. Then what are we talking about here? If God doesn't exist, then he could NOT have created everything and be the "origin" of everything as you put it. The thing is, he exists outside of time and space. He isn't part of creation. But not everything that exists is IN creation. God existed outside of creation long before he made this universe and all therein.

See here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/God-time.html

shnarkle wrote:

And in the case of the biblical God the origin of existence testifies to an essence that cannot originate in existence.

Again, what do you mean? Are you saying that this world is all that exists and, because God created it, he didn't originate in this world? Well, no argument with regard to the last statement about him not being part of creation, but the first part isn't true. As I said, God exists outside of time and space and made this world out of nothing. But he had to exist to be able to do that because the opposite of existence is non-existence and surely you don't believe God doesn't exist!!! He isn't part of creation, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

shnarkle wrote:

Christ is the mediator. God is not the mediator. You're conflating the two. Christ is the mediator between transcendence and the created world. Only Christ can be revealed, and he reveals himself as the icon of God.

I agree that Christ is the mediator. The Bible states that. But Christ became the mediator when he took on human form as God Incarnate walking this earth. I am NOT conflating God and Christ when it comes to the role of mediator. But that's just it -- it's a role. We are not talking ontologically here and, ontologically, Jesus and God are one.

shnarkle wrote:

Youre contradicting yourself again. You just said that God is "three beings" now you're saying he's "one Being".

I did NOT say that God is three beings. I said he is ONE being who exists in three persons. Put another way, he is ONE being who has three consciousnesses.

shnarkle wrote:

By definition, a person is "a man, woman , or child...etc". And the only person in this equation is Christ.

Actually, from a philosophical perspective, a person is a being who can think, reason, make decisions, act, feel, etc. It doesn't necessarily refer to a human being. It is used of God as well. Check out Merriam Webster's definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

If you prefer, I can say that God is one God who exists in three beings. It amounts to the same thing.

And where do you get this idea of Christ being an icon? Are you basing the use of the word on verses from the Bible? if so, could you please share them? Christ isn't a mere symbol of God, he IS God, and the Bible is full of verses that prove it.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 22 by shnarkle]

Are you talking to me or Tam?

What you posted was self contradictory. A thing cannot be incomparable and also relateable.

I'm not saying that. The relation exists in Christ/the word. He's the metaphor, and the metaphor exists exclusively in the copula or verb. Transcendence can't be related to, but the Symbol for transcendence aka "the word" can be related to because it is in itself relational. It signifies something, while at the same time it is the symbol of what is signified, and as a symbol it must be a symbol for those to whom it is presented. In our case it is the created world that witnesses the symbol. The symbol is all that can be seen.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Here's what I posted:

the origin of being cannot be a separate being. The origin can only "be" within the context of existence, and existence is synonymous with the word/Christ/the image/icon/symbol etc. Christ is the mediator. God is not the mediator. You're conflating the two. Christ is the mediator between transcendence and the created world. Only Christ can be revealed, and he reveals himself as the icon of God.

The relation is between the created world and the symbol/Icon/image/word of transcendence, but again the symbol can't be what it is subsituted for.

Only God is called FnL.

Nope. The term has no referent. The term is called first and last. The term/word is the revealed God of the bible, but the revealed God isn't God as transcendence cannot be revealed, only the word can be revealed. This is explicitly what Christ came to do.

Jesus is called FnL.

Insofar as the is the word of God, there is no one else to call the first and last.

Therefore Jesus is God.

Non sequitur.

The texts are clear that Christ is the means by which everything exists, and God is the origin of everything that exists. Therefore God cannot be anything apart from the word. It does not then follow that God is the word. It does follow that the word was God, but that is only objectively and God is not an object.

God can't be the word as God is the origin of the word. The word is. The word exists. it is existence, and God cannot just simply be existence.

Paul points out that God is "of Whom" while Christ is "by Whom", but this is only in relation to what exists. God is not a "what" or a "thing". God is the origin of "whom" while Christ is the means of "whom". Even the pronoun forces us to admit that it must be referring to God, yet the fact that Christ is the means also forces us to admit that the way to God can't simultaneously be God as well.

Again, your handle or name isn't you, but refers to you. It's an identity, but it isn't who you are. Names are used to identify someone, but they aren't who they are. Identification may establish identity, but identification isn't identity.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 24 by Overcomer]

Quote:
You're going to have to go beyond simple assertions to prove that one. To say "the last" doesn't mean or suggest the origin. It doesn't suggest God either. That's simply an assumption. One mustn't forget the context which states "I am the first and the last". When one is something that is also that they exist and they encompass all that exists, not just from the beginning, but to the end as well.

I didn't say that "the last" suggests origin. And I used "the last" with "the first" so I don't understand why you're saying that I didn't. The two go together. In Greek, it's the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last letters of the Greek alphabet.

The two do go together, but the two together don't suggest origin. The first suggests origin, but the last doesn't. The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet suggest the means of building or creating words while the origin of letters are symbols. The origin of symbols are the figures they are substituted for. The figures themselves are the origin of the symbols. The origin of the Hebrew letter "bet" is a house. The origin of the third letter 'gimmel' is a camel. We don't build words and sentences with houses and camels. They are the original figures which became symbolized and those symbols became letters which are the means by which we build words, and sentences, and languages. It's the difference between origin and means which is the difference between God and "the word".

And it does refer to God. As I stated, God calls himself the First and the Last here:

"Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" (Is. 44:6).

And Jesus points out that when you have seen the son, you have seen the father. He says that he came to reveal the father. He wouldn't need to reveal the father if the father had already been revealed by Isaiah right? Moses stands in front of the burning bush and is told "I AM", and yet these are the same words used by Christ when he refers to himself. Coincidence? God can only exist in, with and through Christ who is the medium by which God can be seen, yet this isn't God because God is the origin of existence.

Yep, and one needs to be cognizant of the fact that possessive pronouns refer back to their respective nouns. They do not refer to themselves. God speaks and God speaks with his word, which is not him, but God's word. His eternity isn't God, it's God's eternity. God's eternity isn't who God is. God is not God's attributes. God's word is eternal, yet God's word is not God; it's God's word.

But God didn't use a possessive pronoun in that verse from Isaiah. He used a personal pronoun. So your argument isn't applicable.

I wasn't referring to that passage when I made that comment, but regardless, it still works with personal pronouns as the only person is Christ. By definition, God isn't a person.

As for God not being his Word, the Bible calls Jesus the LIVING WORD, meaning that he embodies all that is written in it.

All that is written in the bible? Hardly. Jesus doesn't embody an anthology of books. He embodies God as in "the fullness of the godhead in bodily form". God dwells in him just like fish dwell in a pond. By the way, even if a pond is full of fish, a pond is not fish.

The word is God doesn't mean God is word. Yes, Jesus is the word. The texts don't say Jesus is God. Big difference.

Bottom line: To say God is from the First to the Last

Sure, but the texts don't say, "God is from the first to the last" so straw man argument.

It's how the original Jewish and Christian audiences would have understood it.

Perhaps the original Jewiish audience wouldn't include Paul of Tarsus because he saw God as the origin of all that exists rather than the means. Given that he's the one Jew who wrote most of the New Testament, and those who compiled it went with his interpretation, I'm going to go with his interpretation.

The point you are ignoring is that attributes are attributed by those doing the attributing, not God. God has no attributes, and no attributes can be attributed to God because God transcends attributes. There is no referent for God, therefore you can't attribute anything to what isn't there in the first place. The title is attributed to "the word" and this is explicitly what is being shown over and over again.

As I stated, God is the one who declared himself to be the First and the Last.

I wasn't disputing that you said it, I was disputing the fact that it isn't referring to God. God can't be the first and last when he's the origin of the first and the last.

Are you suggesting that God did NOT say what that verse in Isaiah says he said?

I'm not suggesting it. I'm explicitly stating it. God doesn't say anything. You can't hear God. You can only hear God's word, and the Christ is God's word. John didn't say: "In the beginning was the bible". Jesus is not an anthology of books. Jesus is the word.

God is the one who reveals himself in Scripture.

God is not scripture. Scripture is scripture. God doesn't have a self. Christ taught to "deny yourself", and he only did what he saw the father doing, and only said what was given to him to say from the father. It makes no sense for the father to have a self to begin with. If God revealed himself in scripture then there was no point in Jesus coming to reveal the father.

What do you mean he "transcends" attributes? Are you trying to say that because he is God he transcends understanding?

That's what transcends means. When the texts state that "there is no other beside me" or that God is "incomparable" that is synonymous with transcendence. There is no limit to transcendence. There is no such thing as "limited transcendence".

If so, that isn't true. We may not be able to know everything there is to know about God this side of heaven, but we can know some things about him because he has revealed those things to us in his Word and in the person of Jesus Christ who is the Living Word. And we can know something rightly without knowing something exhaustively.

More straw. I'm not making a a distinction between the truth and an exahustive understanding of the truth. I'm pointing out that transcendence that doesn't transcend understanding isn't transcendent.

And what do you mean there is no referent for God?

There is no referent for God. If there were a referent for God, then God would be a part of the created world, and God is not part of the created world. God is the creator of the world. Everything that exists is a thing, and God is not a thing. God is not a "what". God is a Who.

Are you trying to say there is nothing like him

That's what the bible states, and you even quoted it earlier.

he has made himself known.

And scripture is clear that he is known only through Christ.

He created us to be in a personal relationship with him and we can't be in that relationship if he doesn't reveal something of who he is to us

And that can only be through his word; Christ Jesus.

So you're saying that God doesn't exist.

I'm pointing out that Paul indicates that God is the origin of everything that exists, and John's introduction indicates "in the beginning was God"...OOPS, it doesn't say that does it??? Nope, in the beginning was the WORD, and the word isn't God, but "was WITH God" Big difference. Notice that I'm quoteing the texts themselves???

Then what are we talking about here?

We're talking about what the texts state, and the texts state that God is essentially synonymous with transcendence, and one cannot articulate anything that's transcendent because nothing is transcendent to begin with. Everything is created, therefore nothing is transcendent. Transcendence transcends everything that exists even existence which is effectively the symbol of transcendence.

If God doesn't exist, then he could NOT have created everything and be the "origin" of everything as you put it.

As John and Paul put it, because they're the one's who are pointing out that God is "OF WHOM all things exist".

The thing is, he exists outside of time and space.

Not according to John or Paul. God is the origin of existence, and the origin is not what it is the origin of.

He isn't part of creation.

Right, I never suggested God was part of creation. That's your claim. You're contradicting yourself now. As I have repeatedly pointed out; God is the origin of creation. This is explicitly what Paul states in his letter to the Corinthians.

But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, OF WHOM all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

There is all the difference in the world between OF WHOM, and BY WHOM, and Paul makes this distinction and no one gets to pretend he never made that distinction. It's the difference between the oirigin and the means, and it's right in line with what John says in his introduction.

But not everything that exists is IN creation.

According to John it most certainly is.

ALL THINGS were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

God existed outside of creation long before he made this universe and all therein.

Except that God isn't a thing, and it doesn't make sense for God to exist 'before' time began. If there's no time before the beginning of time then there is no "before" before time. It doesn't make any sense to talk about time before time existed. Existence however isn't subject to time, hence John's "in the beginning was the word" The word is the beginning and the end, and the word isn't God because as we have already established according to Paul, God is the origin of existence. Actually, that isn't accurate either because it's a contradiction to say God is..etc.becauese that means he is what he's the origin of, and God can't be the origin of existence if he already exists. This presents us with an infinite regression so the authors of scripture get around that by pointing out that the origin of existence is synonymous with God. Whereas Paul points out that the means of existence is Christ.

Quote:
And in the case of the biblical God the origin of existence testifies to an essence that cannot originate in existence.

Again, what do you mean?

Very simply one cannot be what they are becoming, and what is becoming can't be because it is still becoming. The difference is between becoming and being. A zygote is not a man. When a man is fully grown, their origin is in the zygote.

the opposite of existence is non-existence and surely you don't believe God doesn't exist!!!

There is no effective difference between transcendence and non existence. The fact is that the texts indicate that God exists in, with, and through the word. God is not the word!!! The word is God!!! Big difference!!! Learn the difference and you will understand.

Christ became the mediator when he took on human form as God Incarnate walking this earth.

Nope. Christ was slain from the beginning of the world. Christ is the word of God, and the word exists eternally. Existence is eternal. In the word is life eternal, but this isn't God becaue God is synonymous with the origin of existence, and the origin of existence cannot exist in and of itself. The angelic host of heaven are all created beings and therefore cannot mediate transcendence. Only Christ the word of God can do that, therefore he is the medium regardless of when or where he walks the earth in human form.

I am NOT conflating God and Christ when it comes to the role of mediator.

It's not just a role. It's who he is.

ontologically, Jesus and God are one.

Ontologically, the word is existence God can't exist independantly, or apart from existence itself. The creed states: "one in being WITH the Father". The being is the word, and only the word. It is only through the word that the father can exist. Apart from the word, God is transcendent, and transcendence is the origin of existence.

shnarkle wrote:
Quote:
Youre contradicting yourself again. You just said that God is "three beings" now you're saying he's "one Being".

I did NOT say that God is three beings.

You most certainly did. Here's what you posted from post #20

then we are left with three eternal beings -- but still there is only one God.

So you need to decide just what it is that you believe, but my advice is to scrap that idea completely and stick with looking at what the texts actually state. The best place to start is with Paul's expansion of the Shema in his letter to the Corinthians.

from a philosophical perspective, a person is a being who can think, reason, make decisions, act, feel, etc. It doesn't necessarily refer to a human being. It is used of God as well. Check out Merriam Webster's definition:

Webster would also point out that the word person comes from "persona" which means "a mask". Sorry, but God isn't a mask. However, Christ would fit the description of God's mask in that he's God's image. Lo and behold, it just so happens that Jesus is a person too. Are you beginning to see what's going on here yet?

I can say that God is one God who exists in three beings. It amounts to the same thing.

No, it doesn't. That amounts to tritheism. You can call it monotheism if you like, that doesn't make it monotheism anymore than worshipping Mammon is equivalent to worshipping God.

And where do you get this idea of Christ being an icon? Are you basing the use of the word on verses from the Bible? if so, could you please share them? Christ isn't a mere symbol of God, he IS God, and the Bible is full of verses that prove it.

Well, it would be great if that were the case, then we could just agree and move on to the next topic. The fact is that the Greek word "εἰκὼν" is where we get the word Icon, and which is commonly translated as "image" as in "image of the invisible God"(Col.1:15). This word should never be conflated with 'Idol'. Worshipping idols is a violation of the commandment while there is nothing else to worship but the icon of God. And there is no other icon except Christ Jesus the word of God. This isn't to say that all humanity isn't created in God's image as well. It's just that the image is Christ who is God's image. God's image should never be conflated with God though because God isn't his image anymore than your image in a mirror, or hanging on a wall is you.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 25 by shnarkle]

I've never seen a simple logical syllogism called a non sequitur. End of logic right there.

This is where debate fails. You can keep typing but you're not engaging in the root issue of your illogical position: if we cannot relate to God then we cannot know God.

You don't realise it (you probably are starting to) but your view means you can't know anything about God.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 25 by shnarkle]

I've never seen a simple logical syllogism called a non sequitur.

It happens, especially when the first premise is false.

End of logic right there.

Yep, logical fallacies begin where logic ends.

if we cannot relate to God then we cannot know God.

Yep. Of course Paul points out that we can know God only insofar as we are known of him. Why? Because an all knowing God cannot be known. The same holds true for transcendence. Transcendence is beyond knowledge. If not, then it isn't transcendent at all. Changing the definition of words doesn't make for much of a logical argument.

You don't realise it (you probably are starting to) but your view means you can't know anything about God.

Speak for yourself. Now you're starting to understand my argument. Now if you can just refute it, or at the very least advance an argument that would be great.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 10 by tam]

God did not die and come to life again, so this cannot be speaking about God.

God being the First and the Last does not mean that Christ is not also the First and the Last (except with regard to His Father).

He is certainly the First and the Last (only) begotten Son. I can think of other things as well.

This verse is speaking about Christ, not about His God (and Father).

We have a very simple title for God, the first and the last, in Isaiah and that title is repeated about the guy who died and came to live.

So why assume that this means they are the same person? Instead of considering that the title applies to them both?

* I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
* These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Think about what you are implying in your reply. You are implying that the same title can have two different meanings when you want them to.

I apologize for the poor and potentially misleading example. All I meant to relate is that the title and description is true also of Christ, but that this does not make Him and His Father the same God.

With that reasoning you can choose to read even this line how you wish, 'apart from me there is no God' to include all the G O D Gods as well. The all caps Gods. It becomes arbitrary where you pick and choose what you want to reinterpret.

Can you understand that?

I do not understand the significance or difference between all caps "GOD" versus capital G "God". But I think I get the gist of your point.




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

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 29 by tam]

Try interpreting the rest of the bible or any book if you decide a word or phrase means something different when we don't like the implications.