Contradictions and the soul of man

[chessman]

God made "all things." Col. 1:16. Rev. 4:11. There are zero exceptions.

you do realize that;

1) the textual manuscripts of Col 1:16 doesn't actually say "all things", right?
It says " all ____ in the heavens and on the earth were created by Him... The context fills in the blank and in English it simply reads better with "things" inserted. The 'things' that Paul is talking about are both visible (like thrones and rulers) and invisible (like dominions and powers).

2) And there are Pauline exceptions to the "all things" being created by Him:

1 Corinthians 15:27 (LEB) For “he subjected all things under his feet.” But when it says “all things” are subjected, it is clear that the one who subjected all things to him is not included.
​

For example, the Father was most certainly not created by Him.

 

[smaller]

you do realize that;

1) the textual manuscripts of Col 1:16 doesn't actually say "all things", right?
It says " all ____ in the heavens and on the earth were created by Him... The context fills in the blank and in English it simply reads better with "things" inserted. The 'things' that Paul is talking about are both visible (like thrones and rulers) and invisible (like dominions and powers).

2) And there are Pauline exceptions to the "all things" being created by Him:

1 Corinthians 15:27 (LEB) For “he subjected all things under his feet.” But when it says “all things” are subjected, it is clear that the one who subjected all things to him is not included.
​

For example, the Father was most certainly not created by Him.

First of all we don't claim "the Creator" is a "created thing." There is "no thing" we can say God Is by way of saying He Is equal to or is anything "like" a created thing. You do understand that I hope?

Col. 1:16 isn't the only scripture that makes these statements either. There are many many scriptures showing God as the Maker and Creator of "all things" in heaven and earth. There are zero exceptions. And just to intercept, in advance, The Son can not be "excluded" from the same sight that we apply to God the Father, The Creator.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I think these statements are super abundantly CLEAR.

 

[Jim Parker]

A couple things. When I read Genesis 1 and 2, I don't get the impression that man was made mortal. The reason I believe comes from Genesis 2:15-17 NKJV:

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

It seems to indicate that dieing was not a part of living until after the fall and I also believe that dieing is not necessarily our physical death but our spiritual death as well.


I think the last two words of this statement could be removed.

Consider that man was able to eat of the tree of life which grew in the garden. (Gen 2:9) That is access to immortality provided by God until AFTER he sinned. It wasn't until after A&E sinned that access to the tree of life was cut off. (Gen 3:24)

When God created man, he put him in the garden, and gave him all the fruits as food with the one exception of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By giving man unlimited access to the tree of life, God gave man access to immortality. (Gen 3:22)

I conclude, therefore, that it was God's intention that man be immortal.
That conclusion is supported by the fact that Jesus' incarnation, death and resurrection destroyed the power of death and gave immortality to all mankind. (Though those who reject God will find that immortality less than ideal.)


iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

2) And there are Pauline exceptions to the "all things" being created by Him:

1 Corinthians 15:27 (LEB) For “he subjected all things under his feet.” But when it says “all things” are subjected, it is clear that the one who subjected all things to him is not included.
For example, the Father was most certainly not created by Him.

By saying that there are "exceptions" because Paul makes the ONE obvious exception clear, you have committed the logical fallacy of going from a specific single thing to plural things.
There is only one thing which God has not subjected "under His feet": himself.
God did not subject himself to himself.
And that is as far as you can go with that.
ALL of creation IS subjected to God.

 

[chessman]

There is "no thing" we can say God Is by way of saying He Is equal to or is anything "like" a created thing. You do understand that I hope?

I do. God is not a created thing; would be a clearer way of communicating the same point, IMO. But God, The Father, is a thing. Namely, the first person of the Trinity. So when you say things like:

God made "all things." Col. 1:16. Rev. 4:11. There are zero exceptions.

I don't know what types of things you mean. Created things or "all things". If you meant, only created things, then I'm not sure why you said all things, zero exceptions. But whatever, that was my point. There are exceptions.

Similarly, when you say things like:

That "serpent" was made to do exactly what it did.

or

The "serpent" was made by God. "IT" does what "IT" was made to do.

I don't know if you mean;
1)'that serpent was created for the purpose of doing exactly what it did' (which I would agree with) or
2) 'that serpent was forced against its free will to do exactly what it did' (which I disagree with)

But whatever, I don't buy your apparent definition of the thing called freewill, so we'd never really agree on whether my definition of the thing called freewill exists or not.

But certainly you would agree that God made the thing you call freewill (the ability of choosing A or not A where no deception, temptation or lust is present) then since God created "all things", right?

 

[Jim Parker]

I do. God is not a created thing; would be a clearer way of communicating the same point, IMO. But God, The Father, is a thing. Namely, the first person of the Trinity. So when you say things like:

I don't know what types of things you mean. Created things or "all things". If you meant, only created things, then I'm not sure why you said all things, zero exceptions. But whatever, that was my point. There are exceptions.

Similarly, when you say things like:
or
I don't know if you mean;
1)'that serpent was created for the purpose of doing exactly what it did' (which I would agree with) or
2) 'that serpent was forced against its free will to do exactly what it did' (which I disagree with)

But whatever, I don't buy your apparent definition of the thing called freewill, so we'd never really agree on whether my definition of the thing called freewill exists or not.

But certainly you would agree that God made the thing you call freewill (the ability of choosing A or not A where no deception, temptation or lust is present) then since God created "all things", right?

Chessman.
If you will left-click on the word "reply" at the bottom right corner of anyone's post, the person to whom you are replying will be identified in your response along with whatever that person posted.
If you do not, we don't know who you are talking to.
JTLYK

iakov the fool

 

[chessman]

Chessman.
If you will left-click on the word "reply" at the bottom right corner of anyone's post, the person to whom you are replying will be identified in your response along with whatever that person posted.
If you do not, we don't know who you are talking to.
JTLYK

I do. You must be using a browser that has technical issues (errors).

 

[Douglas Summers]

"To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God" Revelation 2:7.

The Immortality of Christ is that of body and soul. Christ resurrected in His body, for His body did not decay. It was the same body in which He was crucified . (immortal) (Act 2:22 - 36) (Psalms 16:8-11) Our life our hope is tied to Christ. As the Father and the Son are One, so are we in Christ also. (Eph. 1:3-5). Take careful note of verses 4 and 5. Our Hope is for a new body (2 Cor. 5:1-9) (Rom. 8:18-25) Study it carefully. Our immortal soul is waiting for an immortal body. Our flesh will return to the earth and our soul will return to the Lord who gave it. (Eccl. 12:6-8). The soul is eternal, the flesh is not. Our hope is for an eternal body like Christ. He is the first fruits of what we are to be.

 

[smaller]

I do. God is not a created thing; would be a clearer way of communicating the same point, IMO. But God, The Father, is a thing. Namely, the first person of the Trinity. So when you say things like:

I'm sorry. Not buying it. There is nothing, "no thing" that we can possibly equate God to. We have no measure of what God is in His Entirety, which is known and knowable only by God Himself. And that's the way it will always be, forever.

I don't know what types of things you mean. Created things or "all things". If you meant, only created things, then I'm not sure why you said all things, zero exceptions. But whatever, that was my point. There are exceptions.

Nothing that exists exists without Gods Hand creating it so. Not a single thing. There are no other 'creators.'

Similarly, when you say things like:
or
I don't know if you mean;
1)'that serpent was created for the purpose of doing exactly what it did' (which I would agree with) or

The above is really what I was getting at. But that encompassing Hand of The Creator does extend to 'all powers' and 'principalites' as well. Including the power of evil. Hab. 2:9.

2) 'that serpent was forced against its free will to do exactly what it did' (which I disagree with)

The only "will" Satan has is the will to automatically resist everything God Is. Satan is the antichrist spirit, exactly as he was made to be. There is nothing free about him. Satan is just a little puppet used by God.

But whatever, I don't buy your apparent definition of the thing called freewill,

I don't adhere to freewill whatsoever. God can not be removed from anything that transpires in His Own creation. He is not sitting on a cloud watching the world go by, seeing what we might be up to.

so we'd never really agree on whether my definition of the thing called freewill exists or not.

I cited why freewill is a complete fantasy prior on a couple of counts, one of which is above. The second is the showing of "evil present" with us, in which all choices are made. There are many other counters.

But certainly you would agree that God made the thing you call freewill (the ability of choosing A or not A where no deception, temptation or lust is present) then since God created "all things", right?

No. Not at all. If there is good, if there is evil, even in any choice, we can not rule out Gods activity in any of it.

I've given the example prior of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews being gathered together against Jesus, to do what? To do what God Himself before had determined. Before these people ever set a foot on the earth, long before they were ever born, their lot was set to do Gods Will. Were these people moved by their freewill to do Gods Will? Assuredly not. It was Gods Will, all the way.

Acts 4:
26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

There wasn't a smidgeon of will in all of them put together that could have changed a single thing.

And if some are against The Divine Sovereign, that too is Gods Own Will, working actively against them, hardening.

 

[chessman]

you have committed the logical fallacy of going from a specific single thing to plural things.

Can you reference a philosophical source where it defines a logical fallacy called "going from a specific single thing to plural things"? Else, I am left to conclude that you just created another exceptional 'thing' you call 'the logical fallacy of going from a single specific thing to plural things'. Most of us just call that counting from zero to one to two, etc.

Paul makes the ONE obvious exception clear

I referenced a Scripture passage that directly contradicted the claim being made by naming one exception (The Father). But the fact is, there are other obvious exceptions as well.

Did God create the Holy Spirit??? No!
Poof, two exceptions to God creating "all things".

Did God create the logical fallacy of "going from a specific single thing to plural things"??? No! Poof, three 'things'.

But the real question is; did God create the 'thing' we call sin?

Is sin/evil even a 'thing'??? Is sin/evil a created thing??? It depends on the type of 'things' being discussed.

To assume the 'all things' of Col 1:16's topic includes evil/sin (or the 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity) is beyond it's intended topic. It is called the Referential fallacy , BTW.

 

[Jim Parker]

Can you reference a philosophical source where it defines a logical fallacy called "going from a specific single thing to plural things"?

There are plenty of books on logic. Try Amazon .
Philosophy and logic are not the same subject.
"Going from a specific single thing to plural things", is not the formal designation of the fallacy. It's just how I described it.
It is a fallacy which assumes that, because one item of a group of items has a specific characteristic, then all items in the group must have the same characteristic.
EX:
Shirley Temple was a child actress who was white and had curly blond hair.
It is illogical, based on that single point of reference, to say that all child actress are white and have curly blond hair.
EX:
My apple tree produces red apples.
Therefore, all apple trees produce red apples.

hope that helps.

Else, I am left to conclude

That is also illogical.
That conclusion is not your only option.
You could get a book that explains logic and read it.

I referenced a Scripture passage that directly contradicted the claim being made by naming one exception (The Father). But the fact is, there are other obvious exceptions as well.

Did God create the Holy Spirit??? No!
Poof, two exceptions to God creating "all things".

The father, Son and Holy Spirit are not "created things."
The father, Son and Holy Spirit are not "separate things." They are the ONE God in three persons.
God was never created; God is the creator.
A creator cannot create himself.
Apparently that logic escaped you as well.

Did God create the logical fallacy of "going from a specific single thing to plural things"??? No! Poof, three 'things'.

I hope you're joking and do not seriously think that comment makes any sense at all.

 

[Butch5]

Over the centuries many Christians were regularly taught like many are still being taught today: The endless torment described in chapters 14 and 20 of Revelation shows the kind of punishment that all of the condemned will be made to suffer. It is well documented that Roman Catholic and Reformed teachers over many generations have often used these verses to promote and maintain the doctrine of immortality and endless torment coming to all who are condemned. But look again and see what these verses actually do tell us…

In Revelation 20:10 NKJV we are clearly told, "The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever”. But please note, this verse tells us that only the devil, the beast and the false prophet are spoken of here. No one else is included in this verse. Revelation 14:9-11 ESV also speaks clearly of everlasting torment, "Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”” But note again, we are being told here of everlasting torment coming only upon those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. In other words, this statement made by the third angel does not by any means tell us all of the condemned will be given the same punishment or condemnation as the demonic worshippers mentioned here.

Furthermore, those worshippers of Revelation 14:9-11 can be seen worshipping the beast and his image after the "the eternal gospel” was seen being proclaimed "to those who dwell on the earth – to every nation and tribe and language and people”, as Revelation 14:6 ESV explains. In which case, the sentence of endless torment given to those seen worshipping the beast and his image appears to be given not only because of their satanic worship and their receiving of the mark of the beast but also because they were made aware of the eternal gospel. Having been given knowledge of the truth and of the meaning of good and evil, and having been shown the way of salvation those demonic souls are moved only to offend with all the lust and venom of Satan himself. By their unrelenting hatred and contempt for God and truth they will bring the greater condemnation upon themselves.
So yes, God warns of a punishment of endless torment in these verses, but certainly not for every condemned soul.The key to living forever is knowing God but how we react to that knowledge in this life will largely determine our state in eternity. The wages of sin is death as revealed in Genesis chapters 2, 3 and 5 and elsewhere in the Bible, but the wages for the vilest form of evil can also be seen described in Scripture as being a punishment of endless torment.

God alone is immortal but He will give immortality to whoever He decides deserves immortality.

Hi Freewill,
The people in Rev 14 are alive, not dead, they're worshiping the beast. They are not tormented forever and ever. Notice verse 12.

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
(Rev. 14:11-12 KJV)

The word "here" means in this place. The saints are in the same place as those worshiping the beast. Anyone who claims this verse proves eternal torment has to explain why the saints are there.

The words for ever and ever should be translated correctly. The phrase is ages of ages. While it is possible that this could be understood as forever, it doesn't have to be. That's the difference. If we say forever it put an unending time period on it. However, ages of ages leaves it open ended. It could be either infinite or finite.

 

[Butch5]

The scriptures repeatedly establish that the soul or spirit does not cease to live when the body dies.
The examples of Moses appearing at the mount of transfiguration with Jesus and Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man have been posted several times. They can only be factual if the soul/spirit does not die.

The Scriptures don't establish any such thing. The transfiguration was a vision of the coming of Christ.
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. (Matt. 17:1-9 KJV)

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Pet. 1:16-18 KJV)

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is not an actual event. It is a parable that Jesus told to the Pharisees. It is about the end of the priesthood. It's the last in a series of parables that Jesus told. There are way too many problems if we try to say this is an example of ETC.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Hi Freewill,
The people in Rev 14 are alive, not dead, they're worshiping the beast. They are not tormented forever and ever. Notice verse 12.

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
(Rev. 14:11-12 KJV)

The word "here" means in this place. The saints are in the same place as those worshiping the beast. Anyone who claims this verse proves eternal torment has to explain why the saints are there.

The words for ever and ever should be translated correctly. The phrase is ages of ages. While it is possible that this could be understood as forever, it doesn't have to be. That's the difference. If we say forever it put an unending time period on it. However, ages of ages leaves it open ended. It could be either infinite or finite.

Hi Butch5, This is what denominations have done to the Gospel of God in Jesus Christ. They have carnally interpreted Scripture with so many beliefs and different interpretations through self willed worship, trespassing in to places they should not go.

 

[OzSpen]

Can you reference a philosophical source where it defines a logical fallacy called "going from a specific single thing to plural things"? Else, I am left to conclude that you just created another exceptional 'thing' you call 'the logical fallacy of going from a single specific thing to plural things'. Most of us just call that counting from zero to one to two, etc.

chessman,

It is called the fallacy of hasty generalization. That's the fallacious reasoning you have committed here.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is not an actual event. It is a parable that Jesus told to the Pharisees. It is about the end of the priesthood. It's the last in a series of parables that Jesus told. There are way too many problems if we try to say this is an example of ETC.

Butch,

There are scholars on both sides of the fence of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31 ESV). Even if it is a parable (which is the view I accept), it teaches one thing - what happens at death for believers and unbelievers.

This is under the Old Covenant because it was prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. It teaches that both believers and unbelievers go to Abraham's side vs Hades and they were able to see each other. Seeing each other is not the issue. The facts are that there is life after death for both believer and unbeliever. That's what this parable teaches.

There is immortality of the soul and this parable teaches that.

Oz

 

[freewill]

Butch,

There are scholars on both sides of the fence of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31 ESV). Even if it is a parable (which is the view I accept), it teaches one thing - what happens at death for believers and unbelievers.

This is under the Old Covenant because it was prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. It teaches that both believers and unbelievers go to Abraham's side vs Hades and they were able to see each other. Seeing each other is not the issue. The facts are that there is life after death for both believer and unbeliever. That's what this parable teaches.

There is immortality of the soul and this parable teaches that.

Oz

There are more ways to view Scripture and the condemnation of unsaved souls than Calvin and His followers did, for example, "the parable of the rich man and Lazarus"...

I have seen this parable used many times as a reason for believing Luke 16:19-31 NASB proves every condemned soul will be an immortal soul and will begin being tormented in hell ("Hades") as soon as they die. Let us then take a closer look at this parable and the context in which it was told.

First of all though, "Hades” which is the Greek term used to translate the Hebrew term Sheol, basically refers to the grave or the abode of the dead and clearly the parable of the rich man and Lazarus describes this intermediate state as being a place of consciousness. But sheol during the Old Testament period also describes a place devoid of consciousness, for example Ecclesiastes 9:5, Ecclesiastes 9:10, psalms 88:12 NIV. In other words the intermediate state proceeding the resurrection has more than one meaning.

This parable then, (a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson) although it quite clearly conveys a picture of consciousness and torment in Hades for the rich man immediately or certainly very soon after he dies, it doesn’t actually say how long that torment will last. But even if death (as in the general literal meaning) never comes and torment for the likes of that rich man continues forever, Jesus was speaking to Jews at the time, some were Pharisees, learned men who knew the Scriptures and the law and were well aware of what Jesus was teaching, and yet many of them had only hatred and contempt for Him. It is clear to me then that Jesus was referring to the arrogant contemptible and uncaring hateful minds of certain Jews in this parable, not least because verse 14 of this chapter along with verses 24-31 NASB make it clear who that warning was aimed at: Such men as this rich man and his brothers would have been made well aware of the God of their father Abraham and their duty under the moral law. Such men would have been taught the difference between good and evil. But the same cannot be said for everyone who will be condemned. There will be others condemned who would not have been given the same teaching as those Jews had, neither then would they have been given the same understanding of good and evil. In many cases they wouldn’t have anything like the same contempt for their sick and hungry like the rich man showed for Lazarus. Furthermore, not only did the rich man show absolute contempt for Lazarus (the name Lazarus indicates he was a fellow Jew) but in so doing showed the same contempt for God’s moral law (Leviticus 19:18 ESV) and therefore also for God Himself.

I do not see a good reason then to assume the agony described in this parable (whether it continues forever or not) reflects anything like the kind of suffering which the least knowledgeable and least offensive of the condemned will face, especially when Scripture also speaks clearly of soul death Ezekiel 18:4 ESV, KJV, NKJV and that God alone is immortal 1 Timothy 6:15-16 NKJV and that He can permanently and completely destroy-(apollumi) a man’s soul in Gehenna Matthew 10:28 NIV. Neither then do I see this parable as a worthy reason to believe like so many Roman Catholics and Reformed Christians have been continually indoctrinated to believe regarding the condemnation of the least knowledgeable and least offensive of those who die without Christ.

If a man can believe that all men were born with immortal souls and that our our senses and our awareness and our ability to reason and perceive will live forever, and at the same time also believes 1 Timothy 6:15-16 NIV tells us God alone is immortal, then the question I have to ask myself is what other nonsense does he believe in?

He can philosophise all he wants to reconcile these differing views to his concept of reality so that he can continue promoting and maintaining the grotesque and vile idea that God will condemn the least knowledgeable and least offensive of souls who die without Christ to be tortured, screaming in agony forever, but in the end he will see what he believes is in fact nothing other than the work of Satan… or to put it another way, it is a work of pure evil.

 

[chessman]

That's the fallacious reasoning you have committed here.

Look, a Biblical claim was made that God made all things, no exceptions:

God made "all things." Col. 1:16. Rev. 4:11. There are zero exceptions.

I proved, Biblically speaking, that there are exceptions to the claim made. Namely, the 'things' God did not make. Like The Son and the Holy Spirit. Plus when someone makes a claim that there are zero exceptions and I show one exception, that's not a logical fallacy.

It is called the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Logic is taught by Philosophy experts. Not by some guy with a holocaust website (or by me or you or Jim).

From your link: "This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred."

As for the 'fallacy of hasty generalization', as it applies to the immortality of all souls (the souls of the lost and the souls of the saved); surely then you would agree that it is fallacious logic to claim that lost souls are granted immortality simply because the souls of the saved are granted immortality, right??? Sounds like a pretty hasty generalization to me.

 

[smaller]

Look, a Biblical claim was made that God made all things, no exceptions:

I proved, Biblically speaking, that there are exceptions to the claim made. Namely, the 'things' God did not make. Like The Son and the Holy Spirit.

God did not "make" Himself. This was addressed prior. God is not a "created" anything Himself, and by extension, any member of the Trinity. The only "thing" we can say about this is that God made a body for Jesus to inhabit. Which we are to no longer consider, after the flesh. 2 Cor. 5:16.

So, no, you proved 'no exceptions' other than pointing to The Creator Himself, which is not the same as any "created thing or power."

Plus when someone makes a claim that there are zero exceptions and I show one exception, that's not a logical fallacy.

Pointing to The Creator and claiming The Creator is an exception to "all things" is an invalid argument on the face of the claim. We don't associate The Creator with the created.

 

[chessman]

God did not "make" Himself. This was addressed prior

I know. You clarified your original claim later on. But the point remains, that the original claim you made was fallacious with respect to the Biblical Text itself. That was my very specific point, yet a relevant one. And I didn't use fallacious logic to prove my point as Oz said.

So, no, you proved 'no exceptions' other than pointing to The Creator Himself

That's all I needed to prove. You said "zero exceptions", I proved otherwise. Poof.

Pointing to The Creator and claiming The Creator is an exception to "all things" is an invalid argument on the face of the claim

If you would have said; 'God created all things, zero exceptions, other than things not created by God like The Son or The Holy Spirit', I probably would not have replied to begin with. But that's not the claim you originally made, that I replied to.

We both agree that God did not create The Son or The Holy Spirit.

But there are still problems with the point you are/were trying to make using those verses (Col 1:16,Rev 4:11). One is the first point I made; neither verse actually says "things" to begin with in the manuscripts. The word "things" is inserted to make it read better in English translations. Which leads to the second problem; Is "evil" a created "thing" that God made or not??? Those verses certainly do not say it is. That was my other point.