Challenged by Sulla

[Sulla]

[hgp]

[Sulla]

Thanks, hgp. See if he says anything about Rev. 3:14.

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Sulla, I think you misunderstand my point and the intended limit and context of my comment. I'll try to get to this later today cause I'm trying to catch up on some work at the moment.

Take care,
HeKS

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hey Sulla,

Just a note. I added a bit of an edit/addition to the end of that last post that I forgot to mention when I was writing it last night.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hey Sulla,

I'm fine if you want to get to the rest of what I said after I respond to your first question here, as it might further clarify my point and save you some time in what you address (or it may not, who knows).

Take care,
HeKS

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

I'll get to this stuff as soon as I have a chance. A bit busy with work.

Take care,
HeKS

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

I apologize for the delay. I have a hefty amount of information here and I'm trying to determine what is worth discussing and how I'm going to transfer it from book to screen. I'd like to avoid typing it all out, so I might try to scan and OCR it but even that can be an annoying process that requires a lot of manual correction.

That combined with my work (on which I'm a bit behind) is causing some delay, but I'll have something here as soon as I can manage it.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

You guys must be, like, totally stumped, or whatever.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

Eleven pages so far in a partial response? I hope that's, like, double spaced.

I suppose it's a little rude to ask before you post, but did you find a scholarly commentary, published in a peer-reviewed journal or by an academic press, and written in the last fifty years, that insists Rev. 3 must be read the way you read it?

The problem, of course, is that Revelation was not universally accepted as part of the set of writings to be read within the liturgy in the first century. Its inclusion in the canon was somewhat controversial, as you know. So a writer dealing only with the works of Paul, say, or one who places Revelation in a class of very late writings, or one who says Revelation wasn't written by the Apostle at all, might speak of the "Primitive Church," intending to exclude this book.

Also, I'd like to have something recent, since lots of crazy stuff was written in the 18th or 19th centuries, and there really has been some interesting work done since 1850. And if it is something taken seriously by anybody else, that would be great, too. I notice elsewhere on this site that Rotherham quotes Martin Werner (yet again) as if his work hadn't been debunked and completely ignored for the last 60 years.

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

Unfortunately it's not double spaced, and this part is looking to be quite a bit longer by the time I'm finished.

As for your other question, I've taken a different approach. What I'm addressing is your claims of consensus on the idea that everybody thinks Jesus is taught to be God somewhere in the NT. I'm addressing specifically comments like, "nobody is willing to say that the belief that Jesus is God doesn't exist anywhere in what became the NT canon," and "finding that Revelation must be read in just the way you say would clearly push the orthodox view into a smaller set of NT writings."

I'm concentrating primarily on one history of early Christianity published this year (because I figured if it was old you might take issue with that), while also drawing in comments from other writers and historians over a wider range of time. I'm presenting at length what the author of this history has to say about the subject matter at hand as it relates to the Christology of Hebrews and John as well as that of the Christians of the next few centuries and how this affects your argument and what later came to be orthodoxy.

After all that I'll move on to to your other more specific points.

I didn't bother looking for some scholar to make the specific argument we're making (though I have some comments on that issue), because even if I found one making that exact argument (who wasn't a JW), I don't see anything preventing you from simply saying, "yeah, well all these other people see it differently."

As for the history I chose to focus on, I didn't choose it because it is unique to what I was looking for. I chose it because it's recent, seems well recommended by authors of other books I've heard some good stuff about and would like to read, and because in most ways it is in harmony with most of the other early church histories I've read (in whole or in part), while offering some additional points that I haven't seen drawn out elsewhere and that I think will be useful to discussion.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

Well, ok. If you are in a research groove, I don't want to mess with that.

On the other hand, It would be a shame to focus on my claim instead of your own. I'd hate it if you spent many hours discovering that, in fact, there exist academics who will say that nowhere in the NT do we find the explicit teaching that Jesus is God Almighty when that's not exactly what we need to find.

I mean, the question is whether anybody else really reads Rev. 3 to be actively teaching Jesus is not God. It is one thing to say that it fails to teach he really is Almighty, it is a whole 'nother thing to say it positively teaches he is not.

In all seriousness, I wonder if this much larger set of questions ought to be on a different thread. If you have eleven pages so far, maybe it ought to be on the main page which could then be challenged on a separate thread. Just a suggestion.

Whatever you decicde, I can outline my response now. My claim has never been that the primitive Church taught the doctrine of the Trinity. My claim is that the earliest Church thought, wrote, acted, and died as if Jesus was God. Moreover, these actions are properly understood only within the framework of second temple Judiasm; thus the distinctions on the one hand between the Jewish understanding of exalted agents of God and the wider polytheistic interpretations are crucial to this understanding.

So, if your effort is basically an attempt to see if you can fit a quarter between the doctrine (if we may use that word) of the first century and the doctrine of the fourth century, I don't know how strong an argument that will be.

Finally, if you are consulting some particular source, would you mind sharing what it is? Maybe it is available for my Kindle.

S.

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I'm not focusing on the idea that the Trinity itself was not taught in the NT, since I'm pretty sure we agree that it wasn't. I'm focusing on those aspects of the NT that were later drawn into the debate and how that interpretation was foreign to the understanding of the NT writers, first century Christians, and even 2nd and 3rd century Christians, particularly in respect to Christ as a created being.

As for your argument that we read "Rev. 3 to be actively teaching Jesus is not God," I reject it. As I've already said, this entirely reframes our reading of the passage into the context of what you seem to assume the Christology of John or his audience happened to be. It doesn't logically follow that for John to record a statement that directly contradicts the neo-orthodoxy of the fourth century, he must have been intending to combat some aspect of belief. But I will address this more fully.

Your suggestion of this post forming a new discussion isn't a bad one, and is one I'd been thinking of, but if we go that route I would probably post it as an article you could then challenge. But if I'm going to go that route then there's a lot more reading I want to do and a lot more info I would include. So why don't we play it by ear for now. I'll finish up what I'm working on for this book and look at some other stuff I've been wanting to check out and if I choose to include that stuff as well then we can just move on to your other points and I can continue to work on this as a separate article for later discussion.

When I'm ready I can provide you with scans of the pertinent sections if you like. There is a whole slew of info that has nothing to do with the discussion and I may draw in some other books as well, for which I can also provide scans.

Take care,
HeKS

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

My excuse is I've been real busy and otherwise real lazy. I think there is a qualification that you are missing when it comes to the way you describe my argument that needs to be made to stand out so that it comes properly into the light, but when I'm not feeling so lazy, hopefully soon, I'll post it.

Regards,
Rotherham

[

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

I wanted to go back to the comments about the difference between my article's approach to the statistical argument as opposed to Burney's approach, and try once again to get this discussion to focus on what the article has actually stated. It seems a good deal of the effort lately has been in a different direction.

The article poses the problem of how else one could allow God to be the interpreter if they did not just rely on his words alone whenever possible. If one has a sufficient database of information within the Bible to make a decision as to how something should be read and understood, if we want God's thoughts on the matter, why would we not interpret the thing in question in harmony with what his words reveal in connection with it? As I have asked, "Is there some other way to get God's interpretation" in things of that nature? That has never been addressed except to say it was a good question, and if you want to address what the article presents, you should address that since it is one of the major premises that it is built upon.

You see, that's the only difference between the approach I made and the approach Burney made (and others have made in like endeavors) in his treatment of "arche". Burney did not just stick to the scriptures, he went to all different sources, Biblical and extra-biblical, secular, philosophical and religious. But the difference in my article is on purpose because I am asking, "Is there any other way to allow God to be our interpreter" except by sticking to HIS words and the patterns and the precedents that it establishes? If there is no other way avaialble to do that then the method I have used, then how can there be a serious challenge to the method?

You complain that there have been no peer-reviewed publications that agree with this conclusion, but I think we need to keep in mind that articles of that nature have never approached it from the standpoint of allowing God alone to be our interpreter. They are all occupied with considering ALL the sources, and are therefore mixed with the thoughts and the patterns of purely human speech, but the point of this article is that IF we JUST rely on scripture and the patterns presented, there's no other choices available except the one presented. Consider it a novel approach to the issue of proper interpretation. Just because it is novel in its approach, that would have no bearing on its validity.

Since the pattern presented can't be denied FROM THE STANDPOINT of SCRIPTURE, then the conclusion is valid and solid. Your task is to show that there is such strong enough evidence in the scriptures to the contrary, that the established and consistent pattern is over-ridden by the explicit information in the other direction. Since we know that explicit information proving Jesus to be God Almighty is glaringly absent, as is partially witnessed by so many scholars that such a teaching never existed in the first century or in the minds of the NT writers, then IF we want the Bible to be our SOLE guide in these matters, the conclusion of the article is valid and solid. It is unmistakable.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

It's starting to look like I might go the route of preparing a different article. I'm realizing that what I'm working on is much broader is scope than just Rev 3:14 or even John and Hebrews. Also, I now have 5 books going instead of one and that number may increase. I suspect it will be a while before I'm done with this, so I might just move on to responding to the other parts of your posts and I'll identify which parts of the post I'm setting on the back burner because of this article.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

I'm not sure what problem you think you are seeing.

What Heks said in his summary of the paper is not in contradiction to the point I have iterated above. What he states does not in anyway contradict the point about allowing God to be our interpreter. I am not changing anything that I said from the beginning which asked about how else one could ensure God's interpretation of things, and that question still remains unanswered. What Heks said in his summary did not change a thing in that regard.

You say all the other means of interpretation disagree with the method I am promoting but they do not address the question as you do not either. Just because they use a different method than the one I am promoting does not mean that they have addressed the question, and they haven't, and neither have you.

So again I will ask, if one chooses a definition for a word or phrase that is outside of Biblical pattern or precedent for that word or phrase, how can they possibly be saying that they are allowing God to be thier interpreter? I submit that they can not be allowing him to be such by that kind of manuever. The question that remains despite all the other methods employed, is, "How can that practice be ensuring God as our interpreter?" That needs answered and it hasn't been. The employment of other methods do not answer the question they simply ignore it.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Sulla]

OK, Rotherham. If you don't think it's a contradiction, then I can't make you say it is.

I think you aren't presenting a consistent viewpoint about this. So, I don't see how I can respond to your point. I don't know what your point will be from one minute to the next.

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

I mentioned this above about the uses of arche in Revelation.

This point isn't a good one for you. Both Vine's and Thayer's (Grimm's actually- a Trinitarian) demonstrates within their definitions of the phrase "First and Last, Beginning and End" that those things mentioned are dealing with things in a series. God is the FIRST and the LAST Almighty God. This is nailed down as the proper interpretation when we see what was meant when this similar title was used in the Hebrew scriptures of God.

It states:

(Isaiah 44:6) “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

Isaiah use of the phrase establishes undeniably that this title is in reference to him being Almighty God, where there are NO OTHERS in the class but him.

So there is no ignoring of any cases whatsoever where the phrase is used of God. Nor is it based upon conjecture since Isaiah clarifies for us exactly what the phrase was referring to. So once again, even in this area, if we let scripture clarify scripture, we know what the phrase "beginning and end, first and last" means as they are used in Revelation.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Rotherham,

I don't care how else we could let God interpret scripture, since I don't think

a) God is supposed to interpret scripture
b) Letting God interpret scripture is not how we perform this sort of analysis

So there is not much point in getting into that discussion, is there? Indeed, if your entire point is that you are "innovating" with respect to the way this analysis is done, then we will simply agree that nobody else in the world looks at the matter the way you do and that your approach is idiosyncratic. That's not controversial, based on what you've said.

And not only are you innovating, you are claiming that alternative analytical methods are in error. I get it, really. It's just that HeKS has been trying to make the point that what the paper is really saying is that we shouldn't ignore the way the word is used elsewhere in scripture.

As for your analysis about the meaning of phrases like "First and Last": it is clear you will not be deterred from your idiosyncratic idea that there is some partitive implication associated with this sort of phrase.

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Rotherham,

I don't care how else we could let God interpret scripture, since I don't think

a) God is supposed to interpret scripture

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What? Do you not agree that "interpretations belong to God"? Are we all not wanting God's interpretation of his own words rather than some human version or idea? How else can we do that except by relying on God's own words and the things he has written?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

b) Letting God interpret scripture is not how we perform this sort of analysis

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It certainly is if you want to get God's interpretation of what he Himself wrote. The scriptures tell us that "ALL scripture is beneficial for TEACHING and SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, COMPLETELY EQUIPPING the man of God." It recommends itself as that which is needed for proper teaching and understanding. How can you deny this?

It also tells us that "prophecy", which by the way includes ALL of God's words, not just foretelling the future, but PROPHECY, does not come about via PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, but comes through God himself. Are you trying to say then that it s OK to ignore the patterns and precedent within scripture and land on your own preferred definitions outside of what the scriptures reveal? How is that not undoing the very thing that God warns against with PRIVATE interpretations?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So there is not much point in getting into that discussion, is there? Indeed, if your entire point is that you are "innovating" with respect to the way this analysis is done, then we will simply agree that nobody else in the world looks at the matter the way you do and that your approach is idiosyncratic. That's not controversial, based on what you've said.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Are you trying to say no one believes that God should be the interpreter of the Bible as you do? Are you trying to say that they would agree that we can ignore Biblical pattern and precedent and choose definitions outside of that based upon our own conceptions? Surely you can't be saying that. Have you read Wallace's Grammar, Beyond the Basics? I have. He constantly defers to Biblical pattern and precedent, even when secular and extra-biblical writings have contrary examples. Why is that? Other Greek scholars do the same when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Why is that? Why are they deferring to the words of God and the patterns presented if they would disagree with my analysis method?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And not only are you innovating, you are claiming that alternative analytical methods are in error. I get it, really. It's just that HeKS has been trying to make the point that what the paper is really saying is that we shouldn't ignore the way the word is used elsewhere in scripture.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
How do you even see what Heks is saying as different? He also states as I have that we should NOT make choices of definition outside the Biblical pattern and precedent. Why do you think he says that? Why do you think the grammars constantly defer to what the scriptures represent as pattern when they make their interpretative choices? It's for the very same reason that I am stating. Because doing so ensures GOD'S thoughts on the matter rather than HUMAN ideas.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As for your analysis about the meaning of phrases like "First and Last": it is clear you will not be deterred from your idiosyncratic idea that there is some partitive implication associated with this sort of phrase. [/color][/quote]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What's clear is that you're not paying attention to both Trinitarian lexicons and the words of the prophet Isaiah. They agree with me. If you want to take a stand in opposition to them then go ahead but you surely can't expect it to hold any weight, can you?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Sulla, titles are made up of words that have meanings. John uses arche several times in each of his writings and always with the sense of first in a series or first in relation to time. You don't discern the meaning of a title an author uses by ignoring the meaning the author consistently gives to the words in the title.

I've addressed the title of Alpha/Omega, First/Last, Beginning/End in my longer post above. Why don't you interact with that and we can go from there?

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

Haven't forgotten. Working on a reply - hope to have something soon.

S.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

I'll begin responding as soon as I have some time, but I feel the need to ask, Do you remember the long post I wrote to you about this part of Isaiah and the connection to John on both the Scriptural Truths forum and Touchstone? Much of what you say here was covered in that post, particularly relating to points about Christ as the first and last, how that should be taken in relation to Isaiah 44, and whether it is Christ or God that is called "Alpha and Omega" in Rev 22.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

I recall that you wrote something. Is is archived somewhere?

[HeKS]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Well Sulla,
'
Seriously, if you can't supply a reason as to why we should not follow the direction of the holy spirit, then my position is won.

Your response was not a response at all, merely a complaint that my position is consistent.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Oh boy. What a great victory.

Where, exactly, do you get off? You write a response to my post that steadfastly refuses to engage any of the points I made. You do so because you insist, as you have insisted for the last couple months, that you don't need to engage any of the literature or any other method of analysis because you have your own way of looking at things. So everybody else can jump in a lake.

I get it. You get it. The American people get it. You are allowed to ignore everything ever written on the subject because God has told you that he means to limit the way arche is used.

In my long post, I simply pointed out where I think the flaws in the analysis are. You have decided not to engage those points because you figure the list you have is both correct and determinitive.

The rest of the universe thinks differently. If you don't care to engage with the rest of the universe, that's fine with me. But your little paper wasn't about showing your analytical method was correct, was it? I am simply pointing out how grown-ups do this sort of thing.

Now, if you like, you may certainly take your marbles and go home. But don't ignore the points I made in my post and pretend you have proven anything. That's a little irritating.

[Rotherham]

Sulla,

I didn't ignore anything that you said, I merely put them in perspective. They take second place to the direction of the holy spirit, which is what we have in the Bible. I think the whole world would also agree that we should follow the direction of holy spirit above the directionof men. The Bible clearly points in one direction. Those you quote and yourself try and point in another direction which is not the way the holy spirit is pointing. I think we can all agree that we should follow the direction of the holy spirit, should we not? If you think the holy spirit is saying something erlse, then show me where it says it and how it qualifies as the holy spirit. The fact is, all we have by way of undisputable holy spirit between us is the Bible. All the words and musings of men fall to the wayside as secondary.

That's why I say that the holy spirit has clearly spoken via the scriptures, that is IF you pay attention to its lead, which in this case, you and those you have quoted do not do so. I have even shown you where Trinitarians agree that the titles in Revelation are partitive, and yet you ignore those.That means that the position from the standpoint of what we both agree is the best thing we have to indicate the leadings of the spirit, which is the inspired word of God, has been won. What is there to discuss? If you and your Trinitarian comrades can't follow the guidance of the holy spirit and its direction, what can be done for you?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

This thread is not about whether one could possibly be listening to the Spirit if one pursues a different method of analysis than the one you like. I know you think you are right and that it is not possible for you to conceive of any different way to look at the matter.

However, and as my long post points out, there are solid reasons why every every scholar who has ever looked at the question disagrees with your position (I assume, after so many months, this includes Jason Beduhn). You are within your rights to ignore all that work as you see fit, but your paper is attempting to convince other people.

Now, your method of analysis is highly controversial -- so much so that not a single qualified person on the planet will endorse its conclusions. I happen not to care to engage a debate with you on the topic of why your methods are wrong; you keep trying to start such a debate and I keep declining the invitation.

What seems clear by now is that your conclusions are entirely dependent on your particular analysis done in your preferred way. The analysis is, that is to say, precisely the kind of analysis that convinces people who already are convinced.

And that's fine. Really. But you're not making the kind of argument that anybody considers valid, and your constant refusal to engage the kind of argument that is considered valid (mine, which is based on the peer reviewed work of respected scholars) is important.

This site is not supposed to be a mindless propaganda site. It has a clear point of view, but that isn't the same thing. But by refusing to engage the serious points raised, you are de-legitimizing your position. That's your choice.

[Rotherham]

Sulla,

You seem to forget that you are here to actually challenge the article and the article makes the claim that we should listen first to what the Bible has to say. Is that really so hard to grasp? Do you really think that any scholar would disagree with that conclusion? Even the ones you quote?

Now why does the article make that claim? Well, as I have been trying to point out, it is because it is HOLY SPIRIT in written form. How can anyone deny that we should first listen to the holy spirit before we listen to men? I really could care less how you claim that a proper interpretation should be made when we have supplied to us ample evidence to determine the proper interpretation from the holy spirit itself. Why in the world anyone, you or any of those scholars you find companionship with, would choose to go another route merely bespeaks the fact that they can not allow themselves to follow the guidance of the spirit in this matter.

Your entire objection to this approach is simply to say that's not how the others do it, but I'll make a challange for you. Find a single one who would deny that we should first follow the direction of the word of God, the direction of the spirit, over the words of scholars and commentators. Could you do that for me? I am not presenting anything new as a thought for interpretation because it has for centuries been presented that we should follow the guidance of the holy spirit when it comes to interpretation. And every one involved agrees that the Bible IS holy spirit, or should, in fact, they will mostly agree that is ALL that we have by way of indisputable, tangible holy spirit. To say that we should approach this from the standpoint of peer reviewed writings of scholars is actually contrary to the standpoint taken by the scriptures, by the holy spirit, and you and they know it. Never once does the the holy spirit recommend such a course, but it does, often, recommend itself and the holy spirit as that which will guide us into all truth. Well, that's what the Bible is, HOLY SPIRIT, and it will guide us into all truth.

The Bible clearly and undeniably points in one direction for the word arche and you know it does. Your only hope is to appeal to scholars who say something contrary and massage the words of the English language well enough that it sounds good to you, but that is not what the scriptures recommend, and it is not really what these scholars believe themselves. They would invariably state that we should first rely on the word of God, on the holy spirit, and accept what it tells us over and above all the words of men. That's all I am saying we should do, but when we do, it squarely lands on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that tells us Jesus is not God and that he is a creation of God. So that is the real reason you just can't accept what the holy spirit is telling you, and neither can they, and in so doing, they resist the spirit of God by resisting what his spirit has shown them in the Bible. it's really a simple equation. You're simply trying to complicate it to muddy the waters of what is otherwise, clearly taught.

So again, based only on the Bible, on the direction of the holy spirit, this discussion ended some time ago and the position taken by the article is vindicated.

If you have some other source of holy spirit to prove otherwise, then please do so. That's really what you need to have an argument that means anything.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Well, this is just you being dishonest. You know very well that the thing people disagree with is the idea that your method of analysis is the way the Spirit speaks. It is by now routine to see you write things that make it sound as if you are speaking for the Spirit.

By now we all understand that you will never allow the idea that your particular reading of some verse and the intention of the Holy Spirit are not one and the same thing. And that's fine. I am simply pointing out that, for those who are not already convinced you are the only valid interpreter of scripture, other ways of reading the sacred books are preferred.

And these other methods are, as a very wise man once said on this thread somewhere, things like context, genre, audience, religious and social context, etc. These are the kinds of things you figure are sins, 'cause we have your litle word list. And we all get that, too.

But, like I said, your paper is really designed for people who are already convinced you are right. If you don't want to engage the conversation, don't. If you want to claim victory, please do. I'm merely suggesting that therre is a reason why people who don't already think you are an inspired prophet have looked at the evidence and come to the exact opposite conclusion than you do. And if you think that reason is because they are not listening to Rotherham (sorry, I mean Holy Spirit) like they ought, that's fine with me.

Meanwhile, there are substantitive issues that you don't care to address. I suppose you prefer to exchange a few posts going over how you're the one who knows how to read and everybody else is biased or whatever. That's ok.

If, at any point, you feel like responding to the observation that the identity of God was, to the Jews of the period, wrapped up with his creative and eschatological acts, consider this an invitation to do so. If at some point in the future, you desire to comment on the observation that contemporaries of John used similar phrases to refer to this creative and eschatological role of God, knock yourself out. If the chiastic structure of the titles in the book of Revelation interests you, just say so.

That's where this conversation is.

[Rotherham]

Oh please Sulla,

Huge strawman and alot of grandstanding here. No one here is claiming inspiration or anything of the kind. Now, I am wondering if you found anyone that will deny that we should allow the scriptures and the patterns and the precedent found within to speak before we allow the words of men to speak. Have you found any? Are there any? I think you know there isn't which simply underscores the method that I am promoting. Frankly, it has been the method for centuries that no one will really deny, at least, not those who believe the Bible to be the written word of God. So why don't you just go ahead and say what you mean. You are willing to put the words of men above what the holy spirit has indicated within the Bible. Even if you don't say it, it is apparent to anyone reading, if there is even anyone left besides us, that this is exactly what you are doing.

I know of no one who disagrees per say with the method I have presented. Exegetes all over the place use the same kind of method where they examine the way a word or phrase is used in the Bible in order to shed light on the interpretation of the same word or phrase elsewhere. You act like that's some kind of foreign idea where it's not. It's been around from the beginning of apologetics and exegesis. They may not word it the same way that I am wording it, but it is exactly what is meant when they say we should let the holy spirit be our guide or that we should allow the Bible to speak above the words of men.

So I'll ask you again. Do we have another guide besides the Bible that is indisputably a product of holy spirit? Do we? I think everyone knows we don't. If we all agree then that the Bible is indeed an indisputable product of holy spirit, why do we need to rely on the words of men for a meaning to a word when the Bible gives ample evidence and a large database of examples to establish its usage? We simply don't. And then, even if we do read the words of men, if we found they take an entirely different view on the word in question that is presented by the holy spirit, how can we claim to be following the guide of the holy spirit if we do that? Please answer that? How can we say that?

Context, genre, audience, religious and social contxt, has snot been shown to shed any light from the holy spirit, only from the woprds of men, and the examples you use are entirely debatable to begion with. Debating those is an endless circle and that may be waht you're counting on in order to avoid the inevitable. nothing but opinion will rule in the end when it comes to debating all those examples that you provide. However, the word of God, the holy spirit writing s are clear as to how the word is used. Of that there is no doubt and no denying of it.

That means the article's position is indisputably valid, that is IF we listen to the direction of the holy spirit over the contrary directions of men bent on supporting something that isn't there.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

I scanned your post for any hint that you have decided to engage my points. Finding none, I assume you are merely repeating yourself.

This is why you get ignored: you don't know how to have a discussion.

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

Let's try this approach. One step at a time.

Do you believe, that between you and I, that the Bible is the only indisputable direction from the holy spirit that we have?

Rotherham

[Sulla]

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

Are there any significant changes between this posting and where it was posted above?

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

Nothing significant

[HeKS]

Hey Sulla,

I've started on a response, but with limited time I can't guarantee exactly when it will be done. I'll get it finished as soon as I can.

Take care,
HeKS

[Sulla]

Of course. No problem.

Have we heard anything from Jason Beduhn? It has been months since you asked him whether Rev. 3 necessarily means Jesus is a created being.

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

But again, why does he need to answer a question already answered? Did he not say that the argument presented by Heks was flawless? Did he not say that for John to switch usage away from the way he always used it elsewhere would not be communicative? How is that not an agreement with our position. What has changed?

The fact that God uses the word of himself elsewhere in Revelation has been answered by Trinitarians and Isaiah as I have pointed out but you do not want to address that so, I will ask it this way, and maybe this will be questions you will answer.

1. Do you agree that the phrases "beginning and end", "alpha and omega", and "first and last" are all saying the same thing?

2. Do you agree that the meaning intended for "beginning" is paralleled by the meanings intended for "first" and "alpha"?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Again, because it isn't clear what his position on this question actually is. You think you know what it is, but I do not think I know what it is. Let's ask and find out.

And that's just what HeKS did two months ago. So I'm looking for an answer.

Moreover, we must question whether Beduhn is really dialed in to this question, since he seems to accept HeKS's discussion of "John's" use of the term in question without cautioning that there is considerable doubt over whether the authors of the gospel of St. John and Revelation are the same.

So, we asked for clarification two months ago.

Now, I spent some paragraphs discussing the meaning of the titles in Revelation in my long post. If you would like to address those comments, I'm all ears. You can begin by reviewing the material under the subheading "Titles with arche in Revelation."

[HeKS]

Hi Sulla,

Actually, Beduhn did get back to me a few weeks ago and we had another brief exchange. He had been extremely busy over the previous month and hadn't had a chance to keep up with my emails. Also, I've just been so busy that I didn't get around to mentioning it here because we were dealing with some other stuff.

First of all, Beduhn does state that he doesn't think the author of Revelation is the author of John's gospel. But, of course, if they are the same author then you can see how his earlier comment about "communicative sense" fits.

That having been said, he feels the argument can be made even apart from any appeal to a consistent usage by John. He agrees with my criticism of Barnes' ultimate conclusion / interpretation of "ruler" at Rev 3:14. In fact, he states that those who claim that meaning here, including Barnes, do not have a very good grasp of Greek vocabulary, because "arche" does not mean "ruler" in a personal sense. As he stated in the earlier exchange from a few months ago, "archon" is the preferred term for that and is what John uses at Rev 1:5. He agrees with my stance that arche in Rev. 3:14 would not be taken as "ruler" by the first century readers of Revelation.

He further says we must never forget that the NT authors were writing to ordinary people -- literate perhaps, but not theologians. They were not counting on their readers having the sort of very specialized vocabulary that develops within a religious system over a period of time. They were conveying sense within the terms available to them in the ordinary speech of their time, and could not count on readers picking up on a very unusual meaning when so many more obvious ones would occur to them first.

Finally, however one wants to translate arche at Rev 3:14, including such options as "source, principle, top, pinnacle", Beduhn says it is "in every case inclusive within the genitive 'of creation,' not separate."

Take care,
HeKS

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

Well, I don't know how anyone could look at what Beduhn DID say (and it appeas from heks latest submission he has confirmed his view) and think that there would still be a question. He said that for John to switch usage would be noncommunicative and the BIBLE itself tells us that the author was John. Your question to Beduhn wasn't about the authorship of Revelation but about the meaning of Revelation 3:14. He has made it clear where he stands on that and why and is clealry in agreement with our conclusion.


BDAG of ocourse tells us that the "first created" is the probable meaning of Rev. 3:14. Vine's, Thayer's and the prophet Isaiah explain for us the meaning of the phrase. I didn't see anything in what you offered outside of the scriptures as having any bearing at all as to why we should overturn the direction that is already given us from the Bible and from Trinitarian lexicons. That's why I see no need or any real relevance to the things you have mentioned. Simply showing how others used the phrase, which is highly debatable anyway, doesn't help us because John was certainly not a pupil of Philo or Josephus who was a Pharisee. Philo and Josephus are likely referring to the still popular view of Anaxamander, whose view of arche was partitive, believing that all of creation came from God in a partitive sense and would end up in God. It was a circle or cycle to him for all things. So there's nothing there that has any strength at all for overturning John's usage of the word every where else. As Beduhn said, to do so would be non-communicative to his readers and if we trust the Bible, then there is no question who wrote it.

Once again, in regard to the places used in Revelation for God in the titles of "beginning and end", I would like you to go back and answer the questions I asked. Is there some reason you do not want to do that?

This is exacly what you wanted to do, to examine the other uses in the same book, which I am all for, so please answer the questions.

1. Do you agree that the phrases "beginning and end", "alpha and omega", and "first and last" are all saying the same thing?

2. Do you agree that the meaning intended for "beginning" is paralleled by the meanings intended for "first" and "alpha"?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

"Inclusive in the genitive of creation" is direct agreement with our view, as he places the Son as PART of creation. Ruler is out of course, as is non-partitive source according to Beduhn and the rest of scripture. We are only left with one meaning, beginning.

Also, I do not see where you specifically anwered the questions that I asked. Could you please just cut and paste your direct answers to those questions? Not what you think the phrases mean but direct answers to the two questions I asked. Where exactly is that?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

I'm not going to discuss Beduhn's viewpoint with you. When he makes a clear statement, then we will have it.

Consult my post in the paragraphs immediately after I explain the chiastic structure of the uses of the titles in Revelation.

[Rotherham]

Sulla, please, let's be reasonable.

I'm not going to discuss Beduhn's viewpoint with you. When he makes a clear statement, then we will have it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
C'mon, you're a smart guy and you know exactly what he meant when he said that it was "inclusive in the genitive of creation". You've debated the genitive enough to know exactly what that means. Please don't play dumb here.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Consult my post in the paragraphs immediately after I explain the chiastic structure of the uses of the titles in Revelation.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
OK, I read it. Am I right in concluding that the answer to both questions is 'yes'?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

Beduhn is a smart guy and should be entirely capable of answering a simple question with a simple answer. If he hasn't already. So, I expect an answer to the question HeKS said he asked two months ago. Not complicated.

Now that you've refreshed you memory on my position, please feel free to address it.

[Rotherham]

Beduhn is a smart guy and should be entirely capable of answering a simple question with a simple answer. If he hasn't already. So, I expect an answer to the question HeKS said he asked two months ago. Not complicated.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
R-i-ii--ght. This really just has to do with your aversion to crow meat.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Now that you've refreshed you memory on my position, please feel free to address it.[/quote]


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
OK, so next question. Would we not then need to find a meaning that lexically overlaps with all three words? Beginning, First and Alpha?

Regards.
Rotherham

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

This ain't 20 questions. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, drop it.

[HeKS]

[Sulla]

[Rotherham]

Hello Sulla,

OK, so let me just state it and then you can agree or disagree.

Since "beginning", "first" and "alpha" are used here to represent the same meaning, then we can find the intended meaning by seeing where those three words lexically overlap.

So there, I stated my point. Agree?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

No. We must consider the elements I point out in my post. When we do that, we find, as I wrote, that the titles are closely related to the Jewish understanding of the identity of God as he relates to the creation -- source and goal of all things, creator and eschatological redeemer of all things.

Indeed, you are better off considering this:

Fire In the Earth

It is done.
Once again the Fire has penetrated the earth
Not with the sudden crash of thunderbolt,
riving the mountain tops;
does the Master break down doors to enter his own home?
Without earthquake, or thunderclap:
the flame has lit us the whole world from within.
All things individually and collectively
are penetrated and flooded by it,
from the inmost core of the tiniest atom
to the mighty sweep of the most universal lawas of being:
so naturally has it flooded every element, every energy
every connecting link in th eunity of our cosmos,
that one might suppose the cosmos to have burst
spontaneously into flame.

– Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

[Rotherham]

But Sulla,

You already agreed that the answer to this question, which was yes, was your position.

2. Do you agree that the meaning intended for "beginning" is paralleled by the meanings intended for "first" and "alpha"? Answer: Yes

That was yes. How could you answer yes to that and no to the third question? Are you now saying that 'beginning' is NOT paralleled with the meanings of 'first' and 'alpha'?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

I think I said that determing where these words lexically overlap will not give us the intended meaning as titles in Revelation.

[Rotherham]

So are you saying that the meaning given to the word "protos", rendered FIRST, is actually completely outside its lexical range?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

no

[Rotherham]

So again, the meaning intended for PROTOS is the same meaning intended for ARCHE, and the meaning intended for PROTOS would NOT be outside of its lexical range. Am I right so far?

Regards,
Rotherham

[Sulla]

no

[Rotherham]

[Sulla]

You are boring me. Look, I explained how to go about reading the titles in Revelation.