₦airaland Forum

Gohf, I will answer your questions. Give me a few moments.

MaxInDHouse:
The Bible made it clear that there are many spirit sons of God who serve as princes in heaven {Daniel 10:13} but why are we only concerned about just one out of all these princes? {Isaiah 9:6) it's because he is the only one who surrender his life to live among us {Isaiah 6:8 compare to John 12:41} so we can perceive all the qualities of his father through his presence in our midst.
For instance if we are to talk about Gabriel he is the person who is standing in front of God in heaven {Luke 1:19} the spirit son who first revel against God also has a lofty position in heaven that's why he could drag many angels under him to join him in his rebellious act. So Christians were talking about the man Jesus for us to know how great he was before coming to the earth so we can show appreciation by obeying what he told us in the scriptures all spirit sons of God are Gods in their respective positions {Psalms 82:1; 6} but none of them is Almighty like their father! Psalms 83:18



None of God's spirit sons need to be here in the first place but Jesus love humans from the time of creation {Proverbs 8:31} that's why he volunteered to take up that mission Paul wasn't talking about his divine status at Hebrews 13:8 rather he was referring to his attitude for instance he wrote:
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:16 KJV

For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. NWT

Check the two translations KJV is not clear because instead of using God's divine name they used the title Lord thereby confusing the reader. What Paul meant here is nobody has seen God in action before so we can't say much about His thinking but since Christ Jesus has walked with humans we can speak about how he thinks hence we know his thoughts.
Now back to Paul's letter to the Hebrews he is now telling us that Christ's thought remains the same always {Hebrews 13:8} so whoever depends on what Jesus taught is totally safe because Christ will never change his line of judgement!
For clearer understanding that it was after his earthly mission he was exalted read Philippians 2:5-11

That's a bold statement that KJV is not clear, confusing the reader. I'm one who is faithful to the original Greek.

τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου, ὃς συμβιβάσει αὐτόν; ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν.

Transliteration
"Tis gar egnō noun Kyriou, hos symbibasei auton? Hēmeis de noun Christou echomen."

Literal Translation: "For who has known the mind of the Lord, who will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."

KJV is closer to the Greek in terms of a literal word-for-word rendering. It accurately translates Κυρίου as "Lord" and maintains the original structure and flow of the text.

NWT slightly diverges by translating Κυρίου as "Jehovah," which reflects a theological interpretation rather than a strict adherence to the Greek.


If faithfulness to the Greek text is the priority, KJV is the closer match. The NWT introduces a theological nuance that is not explicit in the original Greek.



That's one of the reasons why people love the KJV.
So, your statement could be rephrased as Paul should have used Jehovah and not Lord, confusing his readers.

Don't you think that's a very bold statement to make, do you know the implications of that statement?

MaxInDHouse:
The Bible made it clear that there are many spirit sons of God who serve as princes in heaven {Daniel 10:13} but why are we only concerned about just one out of all these princes? {Isaiah 9:6) it's because he is the only one who surrender his life to live among us {Isaiah 6:8 compare to John 12:41} so we can perceive all the qualities of his father through his presence in our midst.
For instance if we are to talk about Gabriel he is the person who is standing in front of God in heaven {Luke 1:19} the spirit son who first revel against God also has a lofty position in heaven that's why he could drag many angels under him to join him in his rebellious act. So Christians were talking about the man Jesus for us to know how great he was before coming to the earth so we can show appreciation by obeying what he told us in the scriptures all spirit sons of God are Gods in their respective positions {Psalms 82:1; 6} but none of them is Almighty like their father! Psalms 83:18



None of God's spirit sons need to be here in the first place but Jesus love humans from the time of creation {Proverbs 8:31} that's why he volunteered to take up that mission Paul wasn't talking about his divine status at Hebrews 13:8 rather he was referring to his attitude for instance he wrote:
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:16 KJV

For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. NWT

Check the two translations KJV is not clear because instead of using God's divine name they used the title Lord thereby confusing the reader. What Paul meant here is nobody has seen God in action before so we can't say much about His thinking but since Christ Jesus has walked with humans we can speak about how he thinks hence we know his thoughts.
Now back to Paul's letter to the Hebrews he is now telling us that Christ's thought remains the same always {Hebrews 13:8} so whoever depends on what Jesus taught is totally safe because Christ will never change his line of judgement!
For clearer understanding that it was after his earthly mission he was exalted read Philippians 2:5-11

Thank you for your detailed responses as always.

I have read all that you have written and I must confess, you haven't addressed the issues I presented. Forgive me if I failed to see them if you have. I wrote about how scriptures tells us about the pre-existence, divinity, uniqueness of sonship, and the position he was exalted to that could never have been something beyond his nature; If truly he is God.


These are the thoughts I conveyed in my last text.
Please can you touch on them focusing on them without digression?

MaxInDHouse:
I told you how matters like this can be resolved wisely the best way is to take things bit by bit! John 16:12-13

The spirit son of God whose life was transformed to become a human earned himself a position higher than all his brothers after a successful earthly mission.
That's why God said all creatures must obey him not that he is God rather he got that high position after his achievement.

Christ's Preexistence and Divinity: John 1:1-3 declares that Jesus (the Word) was with God and was God, affirming His eternal deity, not a position earned. Philippians 2:6-9 shows that His exaltation after His earthly mission was a restoration of glory, not a promotion beyond His nature.

Christ's Unchanging Nature: Hebrews 13:8 states, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." His divine status was never dependent on earthly achievements.

What do you have to say to these?

LordReed:
LMFAO! By Orion's beard you must be on crack. Bwahahahahahaha!

How can the flooding in a river basin be evidence of a global flood? Are you using your brain or is it the crack talking? LMAO.

Lol, I'm also laughing at the science of it.

We're literally on the same page on that.
I don't also believe it.

Science can say what it wants to say about the flood. I'm not claiming the flood can be scientifically proven or not.

My aim is the message the flood story is passing across, whether literal or not. It's the job of the scientists to figure things out for us scientifically.

LordReed:
SO because geologists found evidence of flooding in the Niger basin therefore there was a global flood? What are you smoking?

Exactly!

Did I not tell you I don't base my faith on scientific evidences, I only told you what science has found out as to whether or not there was a global flood.

MaxInDHouse:
Please whenever you are reading Paul's letter try to have his audience in mind.
The letter you quoted was written to the Christians who are Hebrews by birth, this people use to pray using the names of different angels that's why they have what is called the 6th and 7th book of Moses in which names of angels are written apart from the only two names found in the Bible e.g Michael and Gabriel.
So what Paul meant is that they shouldn't pray to God using the names of angels since God never introduced any to them as His son the way He introduced Jesus {Matthew 17:5} that doesn't mean angels are not God's sons {Job 38:7} neither does it mean Jesus is not one of them!

You haven't addressed the question I asked though.
I have the author's audience in mind.

The claim that Paul (or the author of Hebrews) was simply addressing a Hebrew audience accustomed to praying through angels overlooks the broader theological argument in Hebrews 1.

Hebrews 1:4-6 explicitly states: "So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs." How does this align with the claim that Jesus is "one of them"?


Angels as Sons of God:

> Job 38:7 refers to angels as "sons of God" in a general sense, but Hebrews 1:5 differentiates Jesus from angels:

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'?"

If all angels, including Michael, are sons of God, how can this verse assert that Jesus' sonship is unique?



Jesus Introduced as the Son (Matthew 17:5):

In Matthew 17:5, God declares, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him, I am well pleased. Listen to him!" This is distinct and exclusive to Jesus.

If Jesus is just another angelic being, why does God uniquely affirm Him as the Son without associating this identity with any angel?



Worship of Jesus:

> Hebrews 1:6: "And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.'"

Why would angels, including Michael, worship Jesus if He is merely an angelic being? Isn't worship reserved for God alone (Deuteronomy 6:13)?



Hebrews 1 emphasizes that Jesus is not merely a messenger like the angels but the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Hebrews 1:2-3).

If Jesus is Michael, how can He also be the Creator of Michael (Colossians 1:16)?



My question would therefore be:

If Hebrews 1 explicitly distinguishes Jesus as superior to all angels and uniquely identifies Him as God's Son, how can Jesus still be considered "one of them" (an angel)? How does this interpretation reconcile with the command for angels to worship Him (Hebrews 1:6)?

MaxInDHouse:
This is the reason why Jesus said we will learn by bits not just one day. John 16:12-13

You surely have do many questions and they are all genuinely from your heart but can you do me a favour by asking one by one?
Preferably the one that matters most to you!

Alright, thank you, let's start with this:

If Jesus is the Archangel Michael, how does that align with Hebrews 1:5-6, which explicitly states that Jesus is superior to all angels and is uniquely called the Son of God?

gohf:
@ Nachmonides aka Mr.Essence

If truly you understood the doctrine of Trinity, you would know it opposes the idea of God splitting, changing, and evolving.

The doctrine of Trinity explicitly states that God is one being in essence, but exists in three persons. This does not imply that God "split" into three separate entities.

Even the council of Nicaea folks like to reference doesn't say anything contrary.
Please go and learn about the doctrine of Trinity, before arguing against it. I'm not here to lecture you on it.

I'm here to talk with someone who understands it and yet opposes it.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus WAS God in the sense that he performed as God during creation and when he walked the earth.
The title GOD has many meanings the only one that Jesus can't claim is SUPREME BEING.
WHY?
As someone who WAS with God in the beginning and given the assignment to create all things surely he did the work of God but according to him he is taking orders from someone else and there are things he doesn't know like when badness will end completely since the order to end badness must come from his superior who has not revealed it to anyone! Matthew 24:36
So if you ask a Christian in the first century whether Jesus is God they will tell you that he never claimed so but he performed great signs that they are confused about who he really is.
Today what we found in the Bible that makes us conclude that he must be the Archangel Michael was written by prophet Daniel:

During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:1-2

According to this prophecy one of the Princes in heaven will stand up for the salvation of God's people and he will become a saviour as many will escape condemnation through what Michael will do he will resurrect those who have died for judgment.
All these things are what Jesus promised to do and to couple it all John said the person who led the angels in heaven to send Satan away from heaven is the same Michael! Revelations 12:7-12
So if Michael is the one who stands for the salvation of obedient mankind and that's exactly what Jesus did we come to the conclusion that Jesus is the same Archangel Michael who controls all the heavenly armies! Revelations 19:13-14

Thank you for your detailed response.


I have some observations and questions I'd like for you to address if you will:



+ "Jesus WAS God but not the Supreme Being":

John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." How does this align with the claim that Jesus was not the Supreme Being but only performed as God?

In John 20:28, Thomas explicitly calls Jesus "My Lord and my God," and Jesus does not correct him. If Jesus is not God in the fullest sense, why does He accept this declaration?

Philippians 2:6-7 explains that Jesus, "being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." How does this passage fit the claim that Jesus cannot claim the title of Supreme Being?


+ "Jesus does not know the hour (Matthew 24:36)" :

This is often cited to argue that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. However, Colossians 2:9 declares, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." How does this square with the assertion that Jesus lacks divine attributes like omniscience?

Is Jesus’ statement about not knowing the hour reflective of His human limitations during His earthly ministry (Philippians 2:7), rather than His divine essence?


+ "Jesus is the Archangel Michael":

Hebrews 1:5-6: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? Or again, 'I will be his Father, and he will be my Son'?" How can Jesus be Michael when the writer of Hebrews explicitly states that Jesus is superior to all angels?

Revelation 19:13 describes Jesus as "The Word of God" leading the heavenly armies, but nowhere does it equate Him with Michael. Why is this association made when the text separates Jesus from angelic beings?


+ "Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 12:7-12 link Michael to Jesus" :

Daniel 12:1 refers to Michael as "the great prince who protects your people." While Michael has a specific role, where in Scripture does it explicitly state that Michael is the same as Jesus?

Revelation 12:7-12 describes Michael leading angels in a heavenly battle, but this passage never attributes Michael’s actions to Jesus. Why should these roles be conflated when Revelation consistently identifies Jesus by titles like "The Lamb" or "The Word"?

John 5:28-29 says Jesus will raise the dead, but it never mentions Michael. Why is Michael credited with this role instead of Jesus?


+ First-Century Christian Beliefs About Jesus:

John 10:30: Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." How does this align with the claim that first-century Christians were confused about His identity?

Acts 7:59: Stephen prays to Jesus, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Would a devout Jew pray to anyone other than God?

LordReed:
And you are pretty disingenuous by telling me geology is what made us to know about those stories. Geology has nothing to do with mythologies and geologists have NEVER found any evidence of a global catastrophic flood. Nor have archeologists but go on keep making a fool of yourself.

I meant that, as a whole, they tell us about geologic formations and the stories of several cultures depicting a flood.

MaxInDHouse:
You asked for EXPLANATION which is not word for word rather how we understood what John penned down so you can't see "spirit son" just as you can't find "TRINITY" written anywhere in the Bible.
The idea of SPIRIT SON came as a result of what Jesus himself said about his coming to the earth:

"No man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man" John 3:13

“You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world" John 8:23

In heaven only angels live with God as His sons {Job 38:7} they are spirit beings so if Jesus came from their it simply means his life was transformed into an embro in the womb of the girl Mary therefore he became human as God purposed! Isaiah 9:6

Alright, I now understand what you mean by the Spirit Son.

What can you say about John 1:1?

Nachmonides:
.

It says he became flesh, how does a spirit son explanation tally with this?

A spirit means, we know it is not flesh, or tangible.

Please show me in your bible whether it says spirit son, or what dots you connected to come to the conclusion of a spirit son.

MaxInDHouse:
It's simply stated that God had a spirit son who worked with Him in the beginning of creation! Proverbs 8:22-31
It's through this spirit son that everything was made. Colossians 1:15-16
After creation this spirit son humbled himself as the first born of God's children (Creation)
And God loved him so much because he always do things that pleases his father. John 8:29

Now go over John 1:1-14 and try to see if there is anyway to dispute the above explanation.

.

It says he became flesh, how does a spirit son explanation tally with this?

A spirit means, we know it is not flesh, or tangible.

LordReed:
Look the person talking about how using thermometer to measure love being stupìd but has the gall to suggest that stories are evidence of a supposed physical event. Abeg rest.

You are unwise. I am using what science has gotten from their findings.

I wouldn't know of those stories save science which has branches such as Geology, Archaeology, and Geography. And they have told us about the stories of several cultures depicting a flood.

Nachmonides:
Alright, let's do this, you who assert there's no Trinity, let us start with John 1:1-14

What does your Bible say, and what does the original greek say?


Please don't run away from this conversation.

And mind you, it's not only John 1 I can bring a discussion on it from. Let's just start with this.

MaxInDHouse:
It's SOOOOOOOOO CLEAR!
Yet you guys can't reach an agreement on your preconceived thought on Trinity!

Alright, let's do this, you who assert there's no Trinity, let us start with John 1:1-14

What does your Bible say, and what does the original greek say?


Please don't run away from this conversation.

LordReed:
There are no elements that suggest it, stop fooling yourself.

LMFAO! The BURDEN is on you and your favourite book of mythology making the claim.

It is funny how once evidence is demanded some believers turn stupìd.

Geological formations, flood myths across cultures including the Biblical story of Noah, the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, and Greek legends. These are the elements that I know of that suggest it.

Also there are elements that suggest a localised flood.

We wait on science to evolve into the truth of that.

MaxInDHouse:
And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a place where every unclean spirit and every unclean and hated bird lurks!" Revelations 18:2

Since the third century when TRINITY was established she has grown so big and forced many to contribute to her shamelessness but today she has fallen, just see how different members of Trinity are arguing since without coming to an accurate knowledge of their once cherished concept TRINITY! 2Timothy 3:7


Jehovah's Witnesses, thank you people o!

The doctrine of Trinity is clear in the Bible.

You folks are afraid of some texts, I as a Christian am not afraid of any text.
I let the text explain itself.

It's useless to continue an argument with people who refuse to read, understand, and come to a conclusion on a text, letting it vindicate itself.

When they are ready to see the light, they'll consult the original Greek of John 1 and study it for themselves. At this point, it is willful ignorance.

Nachmonides:
It's folly, unwise, unintelligent, and nonsensical to go around demanding scientific proofs outside the science domain and saying that domain is a lie when it doesn't meet a particular scientific requirement.
That's a category error; a false equivalence.

Science is misunderstood when demands of proofs are made on subjects like morality, faith, metaphysics, e.t.c.

Science is simply limited.

The Bible is firstly, a faith based book.

Nachmonides:
By me saying this, I don't mean to assert that the flood was indeed global, neither am I saying that it wasn't local, that's left for us to exegete.

It's folly, unwise, unintelligent, and nonsensical to go around demanding scientific proofs outside the science domain and saying that domain is a lie when it doesn't meet a particular scientific requirement.
That's a category error; a false equivalence.

Science is misunderstood when demands of proofs are made on subjects like morality, faith, metaphysics, e.t.c.

Science is simply limited.

Nachmonides:
I don't concede that there is no evidence of a global catastrophic flood. Why?—I am not a scientist that finds out about things like that, additionally, the science world has not come forward with a definitive proof of a global catastrophic flood but elements that suggest it.

The burden of proof is on you who wants a scientific proof, we never claimed the bible was a book to be proven by science.

By me saying this, I don't mean to assert that the flood was indeed global, neither am I saying that it wasn't local, that's left for us to exegete.

LordReed:
You are the one being absurd here. You and your favourite book of mythology claim there was a global catastrophic flood but when asked to produce it you start hemming and hawwing about science and how it is stupid. IF there was a global catastrophic flood the first people who would have found evidence for it would be SCIENTISTS.

You should just concede that there is no evidence of a global catastrophic flood and stop embarassing yourself.

I don't concede that there is no evidence of a global catastrophic flood. Why?—I am not a scientist that finds out about things like that, additionally, the science world has not come forward with a definitive proof of a global catastrophic flood but elements that suggest it.

The burden of proof is on you who wants a scientific proof, we never claimed the bible was a book to be proven by science.

Nachmonides:
Lol, evidence again.

You seem to love science so much.
Science is stupid in many regards.

What do I mean?:

The perceived "stupidity" of science when it comes to abstract concepts like faith often lies in the misapplication of scientific tools to phenomena they are not designed to measure. Science relies on empirical evidence, repeatability, and measurable data, whereas faith often deals with personal experience, spirituality, and beliefs beyond material evidence.

Example: Using a Thermometer to Measure Love

Imagine trying to use a thermometer to measure someone's love for their partner. The thermometer might give you the room temperature or body heat, but it tells you nothing about the depth of their feelings. The problem isn’t with the thermometer—it’s excellent at what it was designed to do. The issue is the mismatch between the tool and the concept being examined.

Similarly, when science tries to evaluate faith using empirical methods, it risks overlooking the subjective and transcendent aspects that define faith, just as the thermometer misses the essence of love.


Same thing with the demand for evidence on religious texts like the Bible which don't seek to be scientific, but theological passing across a message and may include things science may be able to confirm, where the Bible seems to say something (a scenario, event) to be literal, we are to analyse and see if it's something scientific tools can analyse and produce evidence for. If it's not, then either we have misinterpreted the text or science is limited in what it can currently analyse and produce evidence for.




I am an ardent supporter of science, however there are certain points science diverges with the Bible, and THAT IS FINE , it doesn't mean either must be wrong.

The scientist asking a Christian for scientific proofs of things (events, scenarios, ideas) depicted to be literal in the Bible, is stupid and nonsensical, you're the scientist, tell me if you can prove it using the available methods you have at your disposal.

A Christian knows the Bible is trying to communicate a mind, a message, and may either use literal or non literal elements in the process. Though they matter, he is more concerned about the message.

Scientists and historians generally agree that a historical figure named Jesus, who is believed to have died on the cross at Golgotha, likely existed and is recorded in the annals of history.


It's their Job to actually do the literally digging. We believe it to be true based on what we know. We don't base our faith on what science says.





If you think this is bullshit, ask yourself why you're not hopeless, why you're still hopeful, that's faith. Hopeful you'll perhaps see tomorrow.

Even the scientist on his sick bed takes a drug administered to him even though he doesn't know whether it's legit or not, whether he has proof or evidence as to the claims or legitimacy of the drug.


That's faith. That's why Placebo effect is real. It's psychological they'll say. Lol.

LordReed:
Produce the evidence then.

Lol, evidence again.

You seem to love science so much.
Science is stupid in many regards.

What do I mean?:

The perceived "stupidity" of science when it comes to abstract concepts like faith often lies in the misapplication of scientific tools to phenomena they are not designed to measure. Science relies on empirical evidence, repeatability, and measurable data, whereas faith often deals with personal experience, spirituality, and beliefs beyond material evidence.

Example: Using a Thermometer to Measure Love

Imagine trying to use a thermometer to measure someone's love for their partner. The thermometer might give you the room temperature or body heat, but it tells you nothing about the depth of their feelings. The problem isn’t with the thermometer—it’s excellent at what it was designed to do. The issue is the mismatch between the tool and the concept being examined.

Similarly, when science tries to evaluate faith using empirical methods, it risks overlooking the subjective and transcendent aspects that define faith, just as the thermometer misses the essence of love.


Same thing with the demand for evidence on religious texts like the Bible which don't seek to be scientific, but theological passing across a message and may include things science may be able to confirm, where the Bible seems to say something (a scenario, event) to be literal, we are to analyse and see if it's something scientific tools can analyse and produce evidence for. If it's not, then either we have misinterpreted the text or science is limited in what it can currently analyse and produce evidence for.




I am an ardent supporter of science, however there are certain points science diverges with the Bible, and THAT IS FINE , it doesn't mean either must be wrong.

Truthseeker10:
Oga if you are not ready to explain John 1:1-14, just rest. Please don't brag with John 1:1 again cause you failed with your analogy of that verse with John 1:18.

Haha. Good luck.

I have asked for their understanding of it so we can see if we are on the same page as regards the foundation, before moving on. If we aren't, we tackle the understanding, on my part, or on their part.

Truthseeker10:
Baba go and rest. After you failed at your explanation of John 1:1 that you've been bragging about.

What is your understanding of John 1:1-14?

gohf:
and this is your own conclusion that contradicts the evidence present during the conversations and exchange.

What is your understanding of John 1:1-14?

Steep:
According of 1 John 1:5 God is light.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

So if God is light and Jesus is also light doesn't that tell you Jesus is God?
Remember Jesus is called the true light he is not a mere reflector but the very light himself which God.
See how you think you are cunning ended up setting yourself up.

I think the best thing is to hear what they have to say about John 1:1-14


Let's hear their own conclusion from reading the verses.

DaddyCoool:
I don't know what you find so funny.
You are asking DUMB questions simply because you refuse to know what already instinctively KNOW. Instead you're being semantic.

Bottom line: God is Spirit. YOU CAN'T SEE GOD! You can only see a manifestation of him as Jesus or as a dove or fire (Holy Spirit)

Sunlight, heat, Sun itself combine to make up the sun, yet they're all separate.

Now enough with the dumb questions

You're trying to explain the body of a truth to someone who has refused the very foundation of that truth.

It's dumb questions that one should expect as a result.

The person simply doesn't agree with the foundation of your explanation. That's why I asked for their understanding of John 1:1-14