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?

[tam]

[Replying to post 30 by Wootah]

I don't understand what you are asking me to do there, Wootah.


I would point out to you that Nebuchadnezzar was also called king of kings in the book of Daniel, but that did not make Nebuchadnezzar the Messiah.


"...and he hath upon the garment and upon his thigh the name written, 'King of kings, and Lord of lords.' Rev 19:16



It simply meant that Nebuchadnezzar was king over kings.



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

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 31 by tam]

That's a comprehension issue Tam, not an argument.

Have you mistakenly been worshipping Nebuchadnezzar?

I doubt it. So i also doubt you believe your arguments validity either.

Also you are now comparing Jesus to Nebuchadnezzar.

Post modern reading of the bible fails.

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 31 by tam]

That's a comprehension issue Tam, not an argument.

So might your argument be.

Have you mistakenly been worshipping Nebuchadnezzar?

Of course not. That is the point. Same title does not mean same person (or even same God).

I doubt it. So i also doubt you believe your arguments validity either.

Not at all. It was the first example that came to mind.

Also you are now comparing Jesus to Nebuchadnezzar.

I am not comparing them. I am giving an example where a single title can be used accurately for more than one person.

Post modern reading of the bible fails.

As opposed to pre-modern reading of the bible? Could you clarify your point?


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

[shnarkle]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 31 by tam]

That's a comprehension issue Tam, not an argument.

So might your argument be.

Have you mistakenly been worshipping Nebuchadnezzar?

Of course not. That is the point. Same title does not mean same person (or even same God).

I doubt it. So i also doubt you believe your arguments validity either.

Not at all. It was the first example that came to mind.

Also you are now comparing Jesus to Nebuchadnezzar.

I am not comparing them. I am giving an example where a single title can be used accurately for more than one person.

Post modern reading of the bible fails.

As opposed to pre-modern reading of the bible? Could you clarify your point?

I don't know why you think he has a point. He's done nothing but beg the question over and over. He points out that the title is referring to God because in his mind it's a given that it must be referring to God. Your protestations to the contrary are irrelevant to his argument. It doesn't matter that kings who are mere men are also given this title, except of course when it is attributed to Christ. Why? Because it's a given that Christ is God. He doesn't have to prove any of this as it's a given. Anything that doesn't fit his argument, i.e. your arguments; are necessarily incomprehensible post modern hog wash.

I forget the name of that fallacy but it's something like sticking one's fingers in their ears and making noise to drown out the disagreeable argument.

[Wootah]

[Replying to tam]

I'm not just making up what i am saying. You are literally claiming you know when a title can or can't be used.

Lets suppose both Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar are called FnL and neither are God. This means both are deceivers and not from God.

It's another consequence of your reading the bible the way you are.

[tam]

[Replying to tam]

I'm not just making up what i am saying. You are literally claiming you know when a title can or can't be used.

And what are you doing that is different from you say I am doing?

I am simply saying that two people can share a title (or a description) without having to be the same person (or God).


The example you gave just now about the first and last does not follow, because you are beginning with the presumption that this title can only apply to God (the Most Holy One of Israel; YHWH), and therefore anyone else using that title must either be that God, or be a deceiver.


But you are not taking into consideration the fact that a title can apply to two separate people as long as it is true of them both. (And also if one inherits a specific title as an HEIR, such as Christ is the heir of God.)



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

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 36 by tam]

Well you aren't applying like to like.

When we read that Nebuchadnezzar is called a god we know the context and the blasphemy involved.

So either we do the same and call out Jesus for blasphemy or call out the writer of revelation for blasphemy or we apply simple logic and see the obvious conclusion.

When Jesus said I Am he was not saying I am an apple.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

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

How is my first premise false?

[tam]

Peace to you Wootah,

[Replying to post 36 by tam]

Well you aren't applying like to like.

I think I am.

When we read that Nebuchadnezzar is called a god we know the context and the blasphemy involved.

When did we read that Nebuchadnezzar is called a god? When did I say that Nebuchadnezzar is called a god?

So either we do the same and call out Jesus for blasphemy or call out the writer of revelation for blasphemy or we apply simple logic and see the obvious conclusion.

Blasphemy for what?

Your logic is not taking into consideration the fact that two people can share the same title without being the same person (or without being the same God).

When Jesus said I Am he was not saying I am an apple.

He was also not saying that He was God (YHWH).


The context was with regard to Him claiming to have seen Abraham, even though he was not yet fifty years old.

"Before Abraham was born, I am."


He is before Abraham. That is how He could have seen Abraham, even though he was not yet fifty years old (in the flesh).




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

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 34 by shnarkle]

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

How is my first premise false?

You're assuming it as a given that "the first and the last";'the son of God";"alpha and omega"etc. refer to God. You point out that these titles are directed to Jesus because he'd god. When others point out that you're begging the question, and then point out that others are also given this title who aren't gods, you obfuscate or deflect with claims of post modern nonsense, etc.

You assume that statements made by Thomas are necessarily directed toward Jesus when that is not proven to be the case. You assume that Thomas is worshipping Jesus when you haven't proven that to be the case. Presenting your claims as a given is begging the question.

You think that it is a given, and therefore you've believe you've proven he's God.

When Jesus himself points out that the judges of Israel are referred to as gods while he is merely referring to himself as a "son of god", their claims of blasphemy are patently false. Yet you believe only what fits your narrative even when it is coming from those who Jesus has explicitly described as "liars".