We seem to be going over old ground I understand this to say that Jesus is NOW sustaining all things by the word of his power, and the "all things" is an allusion or quotation of Psalm 8:6 which have been "put under his feet".
It is a topic that is being discussed. As long as it is being discussed it is not old ground. As to your response =
Fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
Just because the two verses comment on 'all things' the context of the passages are not relevant to your conclusion.
Ps 8:6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all
things under his feet,
Heb 1:3... and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Ps 8 is about Jesus having authority over all things. Note "under feet" = absolute authority
Heb 1:3 is about Jesus sustaining all things.
Also does the passage say "sustaining all things now"? No.
Is there anything implicitly being communicated that would lead to such a conclusion? No.
Is there another topic being communicated using 'sustaining all things"? Yes
"upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins"
You have reverted to the question as to what happened to the universe when Jesus was dead for three days in the following.
Actually I do not accept that it is talking about the universe, but the all things of Psalm 8, and this is progressive and given to him even then in prospect when he was exalted to sit at God's right hand.
Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Red Herring: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond.
Also irrelevant. Whether its the universe or 'all things' its only God who can sustain it. Plus the universe is included in "all things."
So back to the original question.
Heb 1:3... and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
It states that Jesus was sustaining the universe when He {Jesus} purged our sins.
Question: When did Jesus purge our sins?
1Pe 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose [
a]stripes you were healed.
Now follow the logic: If Jesus was sustaining the universe when He purged our sins, [at His crucifixion and death], and the universe continued to exist and function for the next three days and nights; how did Jesus, who is just a man, sustain and uphold ALL THINGS when He [Jesus} was dead and buried?
No, it is a rejection of their claim of blasphemy based upon Jesus' answers in John 10:32-36.
I don't see it. Care to point it out?
Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Philippians 2 is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus as a youth and before and during his ministry.
Its in chronological order. Jesus was in the form of God when He was considering His equality with God which took place before his incarnation.
1. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it [
b]robbery to be equal with God,
2. but [
c]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant,
and coming in the likeness of men.
3. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to
the point of death, even the death of the cross.
4. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given
So I will ask you again.
How can a created man be able to consider anything, especially before conception.
No, God is the Creator and the Father and what is created reveals the Father and eventually the earth will be filled with the glory of God Numbers 14:12 and God will be all in all 1 Corinthians 15:28. When we have a child as a father, we do not change and become someone else.
Irrelevant. Your idea of "I will be/become what/who I will be/become" is grammaticality structured to communicate that "I" changes. Your deity cannot be God because it changes, thus not immutable.
No, it says that man was created in the image of God. The word alone does not exist here. "I came, I saw, I conquered".
Your post = There is a principle that states that what one does through others he does by himself. Julius Caesar said "I came, I saw, I conquered"
Does not help you. Why? It's a bad analogy. Caesar used "I" = singular, when speaking of himself and his legions a plurality. In Gen 1:26 God uses Us/Our = plural when speaking of Himself singular.
It actually supports my argument. Caesar was using singular when speaking of a plurality. Same in Genesis God uses singularity in vs 27 when speaking of the plurality in vs 26.
I accept the translation "I will be". The Name speaks of activity, not existence.
"I will be" is incomplete. The words are with equal propriety rendered, I WILL BE WHAT I AM, or, I AM WHAT I WILL BE, or, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. What is being communicated? That He is the God who has always been, am, and shall be: = immutable, eternal etc.
I prefer to accept what was taught in the Bible, not the corrupt Church.
The same early church that held, copied and compiled the Bible you now read? The ECF who were either a disciple of an Apostle or a disciple of a disciple? See the irony.
I like Psalm 33:6,9 and Isaiah 55:8-11.
Over what? John? The churches in John’s bishopric are the churches mention in Revelation, which were heavily influenced by Greek culture. John identifies the Greek concept of "Logos" as Jesus.
But let's address what you prefer.
You are applying the Jewish interpretation of “Logos” which is the word “dabar”. The word “dabar” occurs some 1455 times in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes used in reference to the "Divine Word": "Dabar Yahweh" or “Ha-Dabar Elohim”. The Divine Word brings God's message to his people, especially to his prophets. The phrase appears for the first time in Genesis 15, in which the Word of Yahweh assures Abraham of his reward. The rabbinical schools at that time taught that the Word was the image and likeness of God, the universe was created by God through the Word, the Word was God’s first and oldest creation, the Word was a separate being from Elohim, the Word had not descended to Earth, or had the Word a need for a body of flesh. The problem with this idea is that “Dabar” is a creation of God and therefore on the wrong side of the razor’s edge.
What is the razor's edge.
In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].
If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razors edge, where one side there exist only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation, because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning, because if the Logos is a created being then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God”.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1. {Strong, J. (1995)}