Posts by Blotty

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Blotty

"Protestants who accept the New Testament canon must reconcile the fact that it was the Catholic Church, which they claim fell into error, that discerned and protected the canon of Scripture they now use. " - this is a misrepresentation of protestants... a simple search on google will tell anyone otherwise

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

"The BDAG lexicon, for instance, offers multiple meanings for ἀρχή, including "beginning," "origin," and "first cause." " - then answer the question why BDAG lists NO Bible verse for the "First-cause" meaning? and says the meaning of "First-created" is "probable"

you cant admit this - because if you did your theological position would fall apart.. BDAG is authoritative - it is not infallable however, but in this case like Clifford and Fox state Prov 8:22 likely had some influence whether you like it or not.

"2. In an abstract sense: principium = principle; the ultimate cause and (theoretical) explanation of the existence of the world; in this sense, only Revelation 3:14 (ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως) is relevant, but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely. - " - name of dictionary?

" but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely." - this is telling not even the author of the dictionary believes this meaning exists in the verse..

https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/aparche

Game Over!

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

This refutes nothing I have said... and it still doesn't answer why no dictionary lists Rev 3:14 under the "First cause" meaning (or any scripture for that matter)

Barnes literally says both times "The commencement"... so you are being blatently dishonest

"ek" is only ever used of the Father (the source of creation, according to most trinitarians) in regards to creation to denote origin..
(ek is commonly used for Christ's resurrection aswell - its one of Pauls self imposed rules to denote where Christ came from)

and it only "doesn't fit" because you don't want it too, not because it cant fit or there is any biblical precedent for it not to fit..

"Dionysius points out the difference between creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω), arguing that the Son’s divine and ineffable generation cannot be reduced to the concept of making or creating in a human sense. He highlights that the Son is described in many passages as being "begotten" but never as having "come into being," thereby rejecting the notion that the Son is a created entity."

- creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω) are literally synonyms - if we look at the lxx we see usages of "begotten" which all tie to a basic meaning of "something someone did not posess before"

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

“arguing, polemicizing against a point of view does not come from emotion ("hate") but from intellectual conviction.” - then review the principles of the book you claim to study because you come off as a person who hates or ignores anyone who states other than your opinion.. yes all of your rambling is opinion, not fact.

look at yourself next time before throwing bible verses at me please ( on swearing) …

“Proverbs 9:10” - means the commencement of Wisdom not the first cause, the fear of YHWH is not the source of Wisdom it is the start point of Wisdom.

Barnes notes on psalm 110:10

“Is the beginning of wisdom - The foundation, the origin, the commencement of being truly wise. It is so. There is no true wisdom which does not recognize the being, the perfections, and the claims of God. The highest wisdom - the most lofty endowment of man - is that he "may" know and honor God. This, in capability, makes him wise above the brute creation; this, in exercise, makes one man more wise than another; this, when it springs up in the soul, makes a man more wise than he was before - or, is the "beginning" of true wisdom in the soul. Compare Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10; Deuteronomy 4:6; Job 28:28; Ecclesiastes 12:13.”

Barnes on Rev 3:14

““that he is the author of the creation, and in that sense the beginning - though expressing a scriptural doctrine John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16, is not in accordance with the proper meaning of the word used here - ἀρχὴ archē. The word properly refers to the "commencement" of a thing, not its "authorship," and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist.”

This is a trinitarian by the way.

On a trinity leaning website.

Can admit the “witness position” is the actual meaning.

I can cite significant commentary for the others aswell ( except Sirach and Wisdom) - why doesn’t BDAG cite these verses under the meaning you apply them too? No dictionary does… yet they cite Philos writing under that exact meaning.

Both Col 1:16 and John 1:3 uses a passive verb not an active (. Heb 1:10 is a quotation and so would be active)

Note: Matt verse “by the lord” “through the angel” - where the verb is also passive , infect any verse that uses “dia” to express agency.

Recent scholarship considers this significant so did Origen and in other ways Justin and Tetullian..

“Anyway, you should read this through:” - if it’s written by you I’m not interested as I have seen this pasted else where online just altered slightly- hence I don’t see you as a credible source of info… more of a theologically motivated troll, about as good as the quote mining accusation you throw at other respectable people on this forum.

I don’t count myself in the “respectable people ” group by the way.

“or instance, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher,” - exactly a philosopher, were any of the bible writers philosophers? No, so you cannot go lumping philos usage in with the bible writers - different usages for words.. not relevant - to a restricted context.

“The dictionary citation you provided acknowledges that "arkhe" can indeed mean "first cause" or "origin," supporting the interpretation that Christ is the source of creation.[ omitted for space sake] “

- you omitted this bit, not entirely sure how you missed it - and I thought quite mining was bad? What was what you did then? I can do that aswell

“Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the Ἀρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160–77). “

Note: In an earlier edition this lexicon said “possible” not “probable”

Will also throw in Gen 49:3 both the Hebrew and LXX

You should read that study, actual linguistical scholarship in there by a non JW who even repeats what I told you ages ago regarding John’s usage of arkhe ( not invented by the witnesses)

Self imposed rule and a strict pattern he follows else he would of used arkhe in Rev 1:5 aswell. Well he makes the observation if memory serves.

And observe Barnes’ statement in Rev 3:14, I can cite more of you like. ( in their entirety, you can’t accuse me of quote mining then. )

“BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon) lists "beginning, origin, first cause, ruler, authority" among its meanings, explicitly recognizing the term's application to Christ in Revelation 3:14 as the "origin" of God's creation.”

- read immediate above, yet it strangely omits the other verses you try to use for the same meaning .

“Thayer's Greek Lexicon also supports this interpretation, noting that "arkhe" can mean "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause." “

- but cites no scripture for this claim and All Verses you claim are absent for the definition

Unless you are looking at a different one to me.. that’s possible but I think unlikely since you didn’t cite the relevant portion in its entirety like you would if it did.

“This aligns with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, where Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were created. To interpret "arkhē" as indicating Christ as the first created entity contradicts the broader theological testimony of the New Testament regarding His divine nature and role in creation.”

- you can be created and still be divine… and again read above… that last point is your opinion as modern scholarship agrees with me on Job 38:7

So there’s no way around that angels had a passive role in creation.

Tettulian also agrees with me.

“such a reading introduces a theological inconsistency with the rest of the New Testament, where Christ's begottenness, preexistence and role as the agent of the creation are emphasized.”

- yet prov 8 and other works such as Sirach and Baruch which modern scholarship considers parallels would entirely disagree..

note: proverbs 8:12 where Wisdom uses a first person pronoun, only once which is here.

Scholars note wisdom and Wisdom are two totally seperate things

“Such a view would place Christ within the created order, fundamentally altering the Christian understanding of the the eternally begotten nature of the Son.”

- before Nicaea ( 4th cen) “begotten”and “created” were considered synonyms as can be seen in the lxx

See: Psalms 90:2: for a start

you can have a point of coming into existence and still be eternal into the future..

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) 1. the commencement of someth. as an action, process, or state of being, beginning, i.e. a point of time at the beginning of a duration. a. gener. (opp. τέλος; cp. Diod. S. 16, 1, 1 ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τοῦ τέλους; Ael. Aristid. 30, 24 K.=10 p. 123 D.: ἐξ ἀ. εἰς τέλος; Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 9, §36; Wsd 7:18) B 1:6; IEph 14:1; IMg 13:1; IRo 1:2, cp. vs. 1. W. gen. foll. (OGI 458, 10 life) ἡμέρας ὀγδόης B 15:8; ἡμερῶν (2 Km 14:26) Hb 7:3; τῶν σημείων first of the signs J 2:11 (ἀ. τοῦ ἡμετέρου δόγματος Orig., C. Cels. 2, 4, 20; cp. Isocr., Paneg. 10:38 Blass ἀλλ᾿ ἀρχὴν μὲν ταύτην ἐποιήσατο τ. εὐεργεσιῶν, τροφὴν τοῖς δεομένοις εὑρεῖν=but [Athens] made this the starting point of her benefactions: to provide basic needs for livelihood; Pr 8:22; Jos., Ant. 8, 229 ἀ. κακῶν); ὠδίνων Mt 24:8; Mk 13:8; κακῶν ISm 7:2. As the beginning, i.e. initial account, in a book (Ion of Chios [V BC] 392 fgm. 24 Jac. [=Leurini no. 114] ἀρχὴ τοῦ λόγου; Polystrat. p. 28; Diod. S. 17, 1, 1 ἡ βύβλος τὴν ἀ. ἔσχε ἀπὸ . . .; Ael. Aristid. 23, 2 K.=42 p. 768 D.: ἐπ᾿ ἀρχῇ τοῦ συγγράμματος; Diog. L. 3, 37 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς Πολιτείας; cp. Sb 7696, 53; 58 [250 AD]) ἀ. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰ. Χ. Beginning of the gospel of J. C. Mk 1:1 (cp. Hos 1:2 ἀ. λόγου κυρίου πρὸς Ὡσηέ; s. RHarris, Exp. 8th ser., 1919, 113–19; 1920, 142–50; 334–50; FDaubanton, NThSt 2, 1919, 168–70; AvanVeldhuizen, ibid., 171–75; EEidem, Ingressen til Mkevangeliet: FBuhl Festschr. 1925, 35–49; NFreese, StKr 104, ’32, 429–38; AWikgren, JBL 61, ’42, 11–20 [ἀρχή=summary]; LKeck, NTS 12, ’65/66, 352–70). ἀ. τῆς ὑποστάσεως original commitment Hb 3:14. ἀρχὴν ἔχειν w. {p. 138} gen. of the inf. begin to be someth. IEph 3:1. ἀρχὴν λαμβάνειν begin (Polyb.; Aelian, VH 2, 28; 12, 53; Diog. L., Prooem. 3, 4; Sext. Emp., Phys. 1, 366; Philo, Mos. 1, 81) λαλεῖσθαι to be proclaimed at first Hb 2:3; cp. IEph 19:3.—W. prep. ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς from the beginning (Paus. 3, 18, 2; SIG 741, 20; UPZ 160, 15 [119 BC]; BGU 1141, 44; JosAs 23:4; Jos., Ant. 8, 350; 9, 30) J 6:64 v.l.; 15:27; 1J 2:7, 24; 3:11; 2J 5f; Ac 26:4; MPol 17:1; Hs 9, 11, 9; Dg 12:3. οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. αὐτόπται those who fr. the beginning were eyewitnesses Lk 1:2. Also ἐξ ἀρχῆς (Diod. Sic. 18, 41, 7; Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 45 [189]; SIG 547 9; 634, 4; UPZ 185 II 5; PGen 7, 8; BGU 1118, 21; Jos., Bell. 7, 358) J 6:64; 16:4; 1 Cl 19:2; Pol 7:2; Dg 2:1. πάλιν ἐξ ἀ. (Ael. Aristid. 21, 10 K.=22 p. 443 D.; SIG 972, 174) again fr. the beginning (=afresh, anew; a common expr., Renehan ’75, 42) B 16:8. ἐν ἀρχῇ (Diod. S. 19, 110, 5; Palaeph. p. 2, 3; OGI 56, 57; PPetr II, 37, 2b verso, 4; PTebt 762, 9; POxy 1151, 15; BGU 954, 26; ViHab 14 [p. 87, 4 Sch.]) at the beginning, at first Ac 11:15; AcPlCor 2:4. ἐν ἀ. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου when the gospel was first preached Phil 4:15; sim., word for word, w. ref. to beg. of 1 Cor: 1 Cl 47:2.—τὴν ἀ. J 8:25, as nearly all the Gk. fathers understood it, is emphatically used adverbially=ὅλως at all (Plut., Mor. 115b; Dio Chrys. 10 [11], 12; 14 [31], 5; 133; Lucian, Eunuch. 6 al.; Ps.-Lucian, Salt. 3; POxy 472, 17 [c. 130 AD]; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3, 121; Jos., Ant. 1, 100; 15, 235 al.; as a rule in neg. clauses, but the negation can inhere in the sense: 48th letter of Apollonius of Tyana [Philostrat. I 356, 17]; Philo, Abrah. 116, Decal. 89; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 6, 11; without art. ApcSed 10:3; cp. Hs 2:5 cj. by W., endorsed by Joly; s. Field, Notes, 93f) τὴν ἀ. ὅτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν (how is it) that I even speak to you at all? But s. B-D-F §300, 2. More prob. the mng. is somewhat as follows: What I said to you from the first (so NT in Basic English; sim. REB et al.; cp. τὴν ἀρχήν ‘at the beginning’ Thu 2, 74, 2; s. also RFunk, HTR 51, ’58, 95–100; B-D-F §300, 2, but appeal to P is specious, s. EMiller, TZ 36, ’80, 261). b. beginning, origin in the abs. sense (ἀ. τῆς τῶν πάντων ὑποστάσεως Orig. C. Cels. 6, 65, 4) ἀ. πάντων χαλεπῶν Pol 4:1; ἀ. κακῶν ISm 7:2 (cp. 1 Ti 6:10, which has ῥίζα for ἀ., and s. e.g. Ps 110:10; Sir 10:13); ἀ. κόσμου B 15:8; ἀ. πάντων PtK 2, p. 13, 21. ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς fr. the very beginning (Is 43:13; Wsd 9:8; 12:11; Sir 24:9 al.; PsSol 8:31; GrBar 17:2) Mt 19:4, 8; J 8:44; 1J 1:1 (of the hist. beg. of Christianity: HWendt, D. Johannesbriefe u. d. joh. Christent. 1925, 31f; HWindisch, Hdb. ad loc.; difft. HConzelmann, RBultmann Festschr., ’54, 194–201); 3:8; 2 Th 2:13; ὁ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. 1J 2:13f; Dg 11:4; οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. those at the very beginning, the first people 12:3; τὰ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. γενόμενα 1 C1 31:1; ἀπ᾿ ἀ. κτίσεως Mk 10:6; 13:19; 2 Pt 3:4 (on ἀ. κτίσεως cp. En 15:9); ἀπ᾿ ἀ. κόσμου Mt 24:21. Also ἐξ ἀ. (X., Mem. 1, 4, 5; Ael. Aristid. 43, 9 K.=1 p. 3 D. [of the existence of Zeus]; TestAbr A 15 p. 96, 11 [Stone p. 40]; B 4 p. 109, 7 [St. p. 66]; Ath., R. 16, p. 67, 18; Philo, Aet. M. 42, Spec. Leg. 1 300; Did., Gen. 50, 1) Dg 8:11; ἐν ἀ. in the beginning (Simplicius in Epict. p. 104, 2; Did., Gen. 29, 25 al.) J 1:1f; ἐν ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως B 15:3. κατ᾿ ἀρχάς in the beg. Hb 1:10 (Ps 101:26; cp. Hdt. 3, 153 et al.; Diod. S.; Plut.; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 92, Det. Pot. Insid. 118; Ps 118:152; Just., D. 2, 3).

2. one with whom a process begins, beginning fig., of pers. (Gen 49:3 Ῥουβὴν σὺ ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου; Dt 21:17): of Christ Col 1:18. W. τέλος of God or Christ Rv 1:8 v.l.; 21:6; 22:13 (Hymn to Selene 35 ἀ. καὶ τέλος εἶ: Orphica p. 294, likew. PGM 4, 2836; 13, 362; 687; Philo, Plant Jos., Ant. 8, 280; others in Rtzst., Poim. 270ff and cp. SIG 1125, 7–11 Αἰών, . . . ἀρχὴν μεσότητα τέλος οὐκ ἔχων, expressed from the perspective of historical beginning).

3. the first cause, the beginning (philos. t.t. ODittrich, D. Systeme d. Moral I 1923, 360a, 369a;—Ael. Aristid. 43, 9 K.=1 p. 3 D.: ἀρχὴ ἁπάντων Ζεύς τε καὶ ἐκ Διὸς πάντα; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190 God as ἀρχὴ κ. μέσα κ. τέλος τῶν πάντων [contrast SIG 1125, 10f]) of Christ ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the Ἀρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160–77). [ὁ γὰ]ρ πρ (=πατὴρ) [ἀρ]|χή ἐ[σ]τ̣[ιν τῶν μ]ελλόν|των for the Father is the source of all who are to come into being in contrast to the προπάτωρ, who is without a beginning Ox 1081, 38f (SJCh 91, 1 ἀρχή; on the context, s. WTill, TU 60/5, ’55 p. 57).

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

aqwsed12345

No one is paying attention to you for one simple reason: a quick look in ANY dictionary proves you incorrect...

none of the verses you cite mean what you claim, arkhe indicates a "commencement" not "authorship" - hence no reputable dictionary cites a verse for such a meaning.

lets have an actual discussion about the verse instead of ramming a theological agenda down others throats, shall we?

and blatantly showing your hatred for a certain group with unfounded claims...

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

FragrantAddendum

Thank you - good to know there are more than 4 people on here who can provide an actual reliable source (no, this is not passive aggressive towards you Fragrant)

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

Ill also add Johns primary usage of arkhe and his model seemingly based of Micah 5:2 LXX

and that while the philosophical meaning is possible Strongs nor any other dictionary I can find lists an actaul scripture for such a meaning + in a genitive construction its always means "beginning"

Bible commentators seem to agree

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

Blotty

FragrantAddendum

Could you provide a source for your claim that the catholic church hid fragments? (a reliable one)

78

God, one person, or three?

by slimboyfat in

the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.

Blotty

" absurd and even ridiculous to have a tantrum of the alleged "later development" - this later development isn't a myth - its true, most encyclopaedia's can tell you this...

and you mentioning something that developed 2000 years later (apparently) just shows your own insecurity as Wonderment has pointed out...

Why do you need to point this out? this is self evident.. no one claimed "Jehovahs Witnesses" existed 2000 years ago...

Just like no Witness claims "Jehovah" appeared in the OT - This is entirely self evident because the writers of the OT didn't know English and Jehovah is an English word.

If you hate Witnesses and their doctrines so much, get off this forum and go annoy other catholics (quite frankly you put me off Catholicism in general with the way you act - not a good look)

You aren't going to convince anyone here who is not already trinitarian with the way you talk... you have double standards.

argument from silence really? Witnesses could argue the same thing in the opposite direction and have more success thanks to people like Philo..

your "human nature" doctrine doesn't really work either... as the context about Philippians 2 is about humility.. and acts 2:36 says he was made "lord" and has no limiting statement to any "nature" in fact one commentary states its related to the psalm cited..

"The word "Lord" is used with special reference to the prophetic utterance of the Psalm thus cited. There is a rhetorical force in the very order of the words which the English can scarcely give" (Google for source)

and inheriting fathers names... does that make any son equal to their Father?

Does Jesus calling God "My God" 4 times in Rev (as a resurrected being) not constitute him not being God because he also isn't "on" the throne (God is on the throne) but "in the midst" of it