Search results

I am quite satisfied that you have left what I have stated unanswered and that any reader can see that, so instead of repeating myself to your avoidance, I will let me previous replies stand as it does answer your objections in and of ithemselves.

Please. I have come to the text with no assumption other than to accept what it says. You won't deal with it and you continue to import ideas into the text that aren't actually said! You have not refuted the "sons" element. I've not even seen you attempt to deal with it. The only one who...

You forget to note that Jesus has his own throne that he grants to others to sit on. By your argument then, the Christians must be God too, for they also sit on the throne! This doesn't work. I've already shown that the Father is the one sitting on the throne. Accept it as truth. I've...

Oh, an attempted reply at last! Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in Heaven, and in the earth, and underneath the earth, and the things that are on the sea, and the things in all of them, I heard saying: To Him sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the...

None of this deals with the simple point I made. Where you say "ONE" I am saying it can also say "FIRST". As for hebrews 13, I suggest you keep verse 8 in the context of 7 and 9, which is about doctrine, not person.

Eksesar, Are you aware that the verse can also be translated "first of the chief princes"?

I do not dispute the verse you provided, but the real issue is who the one is who sits on the throne. That cannot be anyone other than the Father, for he sits on his own throne. I have demonstrated this in Revelation 21:7 where he calls them his "sons". To argue otherwise would open the door...

For the reads sake, I will say that in Revelation 20 the person who sits on the throne is not identified as the one who judges. [Edited by a moderator]

I entirely agree with your point on with men. This issue with Revelation and who is sitting on the throne is that the The Interpreter's Bible argues that the speaker in Revelation 1:8 is the same as in 21:6. Of course, Tom is now lowered himself to argue that this too is Jesus, even though...

You must be joking. You've never delt with issue at all. You have refused to comment on the personal pronoun proper name construction that denotes a speaker change in Revelation 1:9. If you say eitherwise, it is a lie. I hope you are not a liar. Yes, and so is John God? I'm saying he...

Yes, this is going nowhere, because I have asked you a question several times now, repeatedly, and with the exact same words, quoting myself, and you have totally failed to answer it. First of all, yes the speaker is identified, but I've demonstrated that a speaker change takes place at that...

I had previously said the following and I again repeat it, because you have still not answered it!!! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Again, I ask you, what is your response the following: <<<<<What I've argued for, and what you refuse to address, is that the personal pronoun, proper name is denoting a...

WOW. This is getting funny. Again, I ask you, what is your response the following: <<<<<What I've argued for, and what you refuse to address, is that the personal pronoun, proper name is denoting a speaker change! Do you deny this as such in Rev 1:9? Or do you believe that John is the Lord...

Why is it you will not engage my arguments? You stated the following: Yet, this is what I stated: <<<<<What I've argued for, and what you refuse to address, is that the personal pronoun, proper name is denoting a speaker change! Do you deny this as such in Rev 1:9? Or do you believe that...

What I've argued for, and what you refuse to address, is that the personal pronoun, proper name is denoting a speaker change! Do you deny this as such in Rev 1:9? Or do you believe that John is the Lord God Almighty? If you do not deny this in Rev 1:9, why do you deny Rev 22:16 when it is...

As I have already pointed out, your use of 22:16 cannot be reliably used, for a consistent application of such exegesis to Rev 1:8, 9 would have John being the Almighty. It is only based on your a priori assumption that Jesus is the same speaker prior but not John. Be consistent or walk away...

The verses are artificial. You're arguing based on verses, not based on the actual text. A speaker change is clearly found within the verse. Albert Barnes writes: "There is evidently a change in the speaker here. In the former part of the verse, it is God who is the speaker. But here it is...

The Father is ths subject in 21:6, as at 1:8. You can't overcome the fact that verse 8 tells us who the speaker is in verse 8.

What about this passage? Isaiah is the speaker in this passage. So what?

And those shared by NT scholars, and something demonstrated by the text lacking in EVERY early manuscript. Marvin Vincent in his Word Studies in the Greek NT says that we are to "omit" these words.