This is certainly getting to be a gross waste of time. I never said "all things" refers to "the gospel alone."
The creation in view at Revelation 3:14 is this one --> Revelation 21
Nothing to suggest it. The word beginning of the creation of God in Rev 3:14 is directly comparable with Mark 13:19 "ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ Θεὸς" "from [the] beginning of creation that [the] God created
" which obviously denotes the present creation.
The "creation of God" must include the present world. The new earth and heavens are "new". Rev 3:14 would have to include the word "new" for your sense to be made out.
These verses are referring to two different things.
Nothing to suggest it.
And neither of them are referring to the Genesis act of creation either.
Genesis creation entailed everything in Col 1:15-16
You have a real mess on your hands.
No scholar of any repute agrees with you. I don't know where you get your ideas from (probably from some extreme Arian handbook - there are arians and arians, but your version is extremist to the point of repudiating every ancient authority on the subject).
Per Alford on Rev 3:14
"In Him the whole creation of God is begun and conditioned: He is its source and primary fountain-head. The mere word ἀρχή would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Genesis 49:3
; Deuteronomy 21:17
; and Proverbs 8:22
. And so the Arians here take it, and some who have followed them: e. g. Castalio,” chef d’œuvre:” “omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum:” and so Ewald and Züllig. But every consideration of the requirements of the context, and of the Person of Christ as set forth to us in this book, is against any such view. Others, as Calov., Bengel, Whitby, al., make ἀρχή = ἄρχων, which is impossible: as it is also to interpret κτίσεως of the new spiritual creation, the church, as Ribera, Corn.-a-lap., Grot., Wetst., al. There can be little doubt that ἀρχή is to be taken in that pregnant sense in which we have it, e. g., in Wisd. 12:16, ἡ γὰρ ἰσχύς σου δικαιοσύνης ἀρχή,—ib. 14:27, ἡ γὰρ τῶν … εἰδώλων θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ κακοῦ καὶ αἰτία καὶ πέρας ἐστίν: and in the Gospel of Nicodemus, p. ii. cap. vii. Tischdf. Ev. Apoc. p. 307, where Satan is said to be ἀρχὴ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ ῥίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, viz. the incipient cause. So Andr., Areth. in Catena (ἡ προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία τῆς κτίσεως), Lyra, Vitr., Wolf, Stern, Hengst., De Wette, Ebrard, Düsterd., al. The latter asks the questions, “How could Christ write if it were only this present Epistle, if he were himself a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth adore him, if he were one of themselves (cf. ch. 19:10)? We need only think of the appellation of our Lord as the Α and Ω (ch. 22:13: cf. 1:8) in its necessary fulness of import, and we shall see that in the Α lies the necessity of his being the ἀρχή of the Creation, as in the Ω that of his coming to bring the visible creation to an end”):"
Your version of Arianism is so extreme that it qualifies as Adoptionism, which has been a heresy from the beginning of the gospel - in fact one of the first heresies - antedating the Nicene creed by centuries. Adoptionism is a direct repudiation of Christ's own teachings: it belongs to history, when people did not have bibles and were easily swayed by such false teachers.
You must be having a debate with somebody in your imagination.
It's difficult for me to relate to you, to be sure.