Christ – The Alpha and the Omega by Dee Dee Warren

[dizzle]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/articles/AO.gif
Christ – The Alpha and the Omega

by Dee Dee Warren

I have been in discussions over the years with Unitarians from different persuasions over the issue of whether or not Christ is ever given the Divine designation “Alpha and Omega.” I assert unequivocally that He is, and that such is a clear testament to His absolute and unqualified Deity. The main verse under dispute is:

Revelation 22:12
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

The specific Unitarian argument that I will deal with basically states that neither Christ nor the Father is directly speaking in this passage, but rather the angel that John was previously speaking with in the preceding verses has continued speaking as the representative of the Father. Of course that begs the question of why the angel could not be speaking as the representative of Christ if indeed the angel is still speaking. In answering these questions, there are many assumptions made in the Unitarian argument to this passage, the foundation of which is the assumption of the unipersonality of God and a “functional- only” Christology. Those are assumptions imported into this text, not derived from this text (and in fact highly foreign to it).

Coming Along

As its first support, the Unitarian argument states that although Christ is the One who is literally coming to earth throughout Revelation, the Father is also spoken of as the One coming, though He never will literally descend to the earth. Now I unabashedly answer this point from my orthodox preterist position and state that Revelation does not in fact teach that Christ is “literally” coming, if by “literally” the meaning is that He is leaving Heaven bodily and physically descending to the earth. That is not something taught at all by Revelation. It is taught elsewhere in the Bible, but not here, and is speaking of an entirely different event than the bulk of Revelation.

Of course, even if the Unitarian were correct about the nature of this “coming,” the assumption is also made in this argument and elsewhere that Christ is ONLY acting as the representative/agent of the Father and that such would necessarily exclude Him from the Identity of Deity (an unwarranted leap). If in fact, this is not a bodily coming to earth, and it is not, but rather a judgment from Heaven, the need for a representative “agent” in the person of Christ is not needed. The only “agents” of God in Revelation are the earthly participants and demonic hosts perpetrating the destruction. And the very concept that Christ is “coming in the clouds,” is yet again, another reference to His Deity. The judgment cloud-comings are always comings of YHWH Himself in the OT, through the agencies of His creation, very often pagan nations. The “clouds” symbolize His glory, terror, and unapproachable holiness, and they are claimed for Christ. This sort of “functional only” Christology ignores the fact that Christ can function as Deity specifically because He is Deity.

The Key: Christ is the First and the Last

Now in order to show that it is Christ speaking in our passage under examination, I point out that Christ has already taken the title of “First and Last” in Revelation 1:16. The Unitarian argument then counters that although the Father is called the “First and Last” in several places in Isaiah, Christ is called the “First and Last” in Revelation for an entirely different reason. This is not true, but rather a poor attempt to explain away the Revelation passages. If one were to just take the Revelation and the Isaiah passages together without importing Unitarian presuppositions into the text, the Deity of Christ is obvious. Revelation is recognized as being an accumulation of hundreds of allusions to OT texts. There is no indication whatsoever that “First and Last” is being used for two entirely different reasons (and the exalted nature of that very term would make it impossible in the first place). That is reading one’s preset theology into the text and is blatantly circular.

I agree with the Unitarian foundation that Yahweh is called the First and the Last in Isaiah because He is the Creator and the Completer. He also bears that title to show that there is nothing outside of Him, He is the Totality. The fullness of that term is protological and eschatological. He began all things and will end all things. He is the Creator and the Consummator. This is clearly a strong title of Deity. It would be very, very misleading to just go and apply that title to Christ, without qualification (and this Unitarian explanation is doing a lot of qualifying), when it is such a clear title of Deity. In fact its use in the exact same phraseology as used of God would be downright inappropriate. Jews were notoriously careful in their writings to use certain characteristics and titles of God exclusively for God to unambiguously differentiate Him from all other reality, including exalted patriarchs and angels or other exalted personages. This is such a title and would have been understood in that manner.

In addition to all of the above, it cannot be said that the reason that this phrase is used is because Christ is elsewhere called Firstborn, since that also simply begs the point in that that Title (Firstborn) indicates His preeminence over everything, and also points to His Deity, and an appeal cannot be made to a “last Adam” comment in an entirely different context, as the “last Adam” there (1 Cor. 15) is juxtaposed with the “first Adam” which would be the natural referent of “first” in the “First and Last,” if the “last” indeed refers to the title of “last Adam.” And in the next sentence Paul equates the phrase “last Adam” with “second man,” showing that “last” means the same in that context as “second.” Christ did not say that He was the “First and the Second.”

One cannot take a unified (and already established) concept of “First and Last” and then pull in two other concepts that have not been Biblically related to each other in sequential manner, as “First and Last” is intended to be taken. It does complete violence to the text, and especially so in Revelation where it is obvious that the allusions are almost always directly to the OT firstly, not the NT. And of course, the phrase is an “exact” title from the OT, which would then be the natural referent for all three of its usages in Revelation (chapters 1, 2, and 22 – and in 22 in which the Unitarian argument does argue that it IS referring to the Father) Revelation 1, at verse 11[/b], is the subject of a textual variant and will not be extensively brought into the discussion for that reason alone].

Not only that, but that title had already become an exchange term for God Himself within the first century Jewish context. God uses it of Himself almost polemically. He is not [I]just claiming to be the First and the Last, as if whatever exists between “first” and “last” has nothing to do with Him, but is claiming to be the First and the Last and everything that is between. To use that exact same phrase to mean something else is to reduce it to nonsense and to disregard the “everything in between” aspect of its meaning and its polemical placements in Isaiah.. Additionally, where that term appears and is repeated in Isaiah is also very, very important as those chapters have been called and recognized by many scholars as the pinnacle of the OT expression of who God is and Judaistic monotheism. It would be blasphemous for a creature to take from those passages (especially those passages!!) a title of Deity and apply it to Himself. If all that was meant to be expressed was “firstborn” and “last Adam,” there were much less dangerous ways to express it (such as actually saying Firstborn and Last Adam). Isaiah Chapters 40-55 contain the strongest and greatest divine assertions of God’s unique identity as Creator and sovereign of the universe. You cannot divorce “First and Last” from that “baggage.”

Further, this Unitarian explanation ignores and totally wrests the connection between Revelation 1 and 22. The Unitarian wants us to go through places in the NT to find our referent for “First and Last” which I have already shown to be highly superficial and incorrect methodology. There is no indication in the passage that it is alluding primarily to NT titles, and in fact, the first place to start looking for the meaning of the phrase is within the same Book itself, and the exact phrase, in a tititular context, is used three times (at a minimum and with one disputed usage in 1:11) in Revelation, and with the third usage the Unitarian is arguing that it is used of the Father!

Now, I would argue that all three times that “First and Last” is used in Revelation, it is clearly used of Christ, but just for the sake of discussion, we will assume for a moment that in Revelation 22:13, it is the Father who is speaking, and He claims to be the “First and the Last.” However, in Revelation 1:17 Christ claims that title for Himself. The connection is obviously meant to be made to the declaration in Revelation 22:13 (both uses have very near proximities to threats/warnings/promises of “coming quickly”) in which it is given as an unequivocal declaration of Deity and explained by its repetition (in case we were thick – which it appears that we are) of the synonymous terms of “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End.” “First and Last” does not mean anything substantially different from “Alpha and Omega” or “Beginning and End,” it is simply sequentially alphabetically expressing the same thing that was expressed sequentially numerically and sequentially temporally. This is so patently obvious that the burden of proof is upon those who would assert otherwise. They are synonymous and yet we all agree that Jesus claims the title of “First and Last” for Himself at least once. The enormous burden of proof is on the one who wants to claim two entirely different meanings for the same title within the same Book in similar contexts (and even possibly if the textual variant in verse 1:11 is correct within 7 verses of each other), especially in light of its importance as a title of Deity in Isaiah, and synonymous pairing in 22:13 with undisputed titles of Deity.

And if one wants to travel to the rest of the NT for the referents for the title, its use for the Deity of Christ comes into clearer focus when the fact that “First and Last” is to be understood protologically and eschatologically is fully explored. Christ, throughout the NT, is given protological preeminence, thus demonstrating Him as the First, and also is given eschatological preeminence, thus demonstrating Him as the Last, and interestingly claims that title in an eschatological context in Revelation (the Firstborn title that was appealed to in Colossians 2 in the Unitarian explanation is the claim in a protological context). It is beyond belief to posit that the exact same title, worded in the exact same way, taken from the pinnacle of the expression of Judaistic monotheism, is to be understood in different ways within the same book and possibly within eight verses of each other (if the textual variant is correct).

Says Who?

These incorrect and untenable Unitarian assumptions unfounded by, and in fact contradicted by the text, continue with the argument that it is the angel who is allegedly still speaking in Revelation 22:13. Some texts indicate that it is Christ Himself speaking. I certainly believe that it is Christ Himself speaking. The fact that an angel was speaking, and then there is a change to Christ without explicit introduction causes no problem in the style and format of Revelation. Christ is the one who has been revealed (and remember that the book is the “Revelation” of Jesus Christ – the unveiling of who He really is) throughout Revelation as the one who is coming quickly (and as a thief). A statement to that affect, with nobody explicitly identified as the speaker already happened earlier in Revelation at 16:15., and thus it would be not be unnatural to assume the same here.

That being said, however, if one is going to maintain it is the angel continuously speaking, then there really is no warrant at all for changing the speaker then to Christ at verse 22:16, and that change I would say is in fact most likely motivated by Unitarian bias. There is no compelling textual warrant for it and in fact explicit warrant against it if the Unitarian argument were true because the very same reasons that would motivate someone to hold that the angel is speaking up through verse 15 would be just as valid to have the angel continuing to speak. In other words, the Unitarian argument claimed that because verse 16 says, “I, Jesus,…” then Jesus must then be speaking, but wants to have it both ways since the same angel supposedly says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” which is an explicit personal identification as well, but that occurrence does not necessitate there that the actual “Alpha and Omega” be actually speaking. This is highly inconsistent.

The Unitarian relies upon his own presuppositions in a circular fashion to prove that the angel is still speaking as representative of the Father because the title “Alpha Omega” is never used of Christ and thus can never be used of Christ, thus they proclaim that the identification is obvious. The only things that are obvious, however, are the presuppositions brought to the text. I will go through this in great detail. First, there is warrant for believing that the angel is not speaking at all in that statement. In the OT with the exception of the Angel of the Lord (for very specific reasons) the general pattern is that a messenger or representative of God (such as a “regular angel” or prophet) prefaces such statements with an explicit identification that it is God’s words by “thus saith the Lord” or something to that affect. (yes, there are a few ‘possible’ exceptions to that pattern, but it is undeniably the majority pattern)

Second, the Unitarian argument must assume that “Alpha and Omega” is never used of Christ, but that is assuming what must proven and was not proven. And in fact, “Alpha and Omega” is synonymous with “First and Last” which has been used of Christ. The Unitarian problem is that they must maintain that Revelation 1:8 using the title “Alpha and Omega,” refers only to the Father, so then it must only be referring to the Father here. But the term is synonymous with one of the titles already unambiguously being used to refer to Christ. Also I say yet again, the Unitarian is also highly inconsistent with his “rules” here also because he claimed that one of the “proofs” that the Father was speaking in verse 1:8 was that the Father had already been earlier identified as the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come.” However, the Unitarian does not apply that same standard to the term “First and Last” for if he did he would have to argue that Jesus is in fact speaking in 22:13.

Also, it is obvious that the angel does not only represent the Father (if the angel is even representing the Father at all) , but in fact represents Christ. Within the very same passage, if one wants to interject the Father here, the angel is sent by BOTH and is identified as the angel of BOTH. There is no indication of, or warrant for, positing two different angels. An appeal that the “angel of Jesus” spoken of in 22:16 is different from the angel speaking in verses 6-15 is completely specious. The only reason for the Unitarian to try and say otherwise is because he must make the angel in verse 16 different from the angel speaking, but that makes no sense in context. An angel was speaking, and then Jesus supposedly steps in and talks about an angel speaking but is referring to an entirely different angel?? Unbelievable. The statement is in fact a parallel to the previous angelic statement in 22:6 which makes it obvious there is one angel sent by BOTH, or alternatively, and what I hold, is that verse 22:6 is again another unequivocal reference to the Deity of Christ. He is the one who sent the angel to testify to His bondservants (as the prologue clearly states) and thus He is the God of the spirits of the prophets as stated in that verse.

One also cannot state that the “angel” mentioned in verse 22:16 is just an “epilogal” reference to the angel in the prologue and thus a different angel than the angel in verse 22:6 and speaking throughout for several reasons. First, the angel in 22:6 is obviously the same angel in the prologue as the same terms are used that this angel is to reveal things that “are shortly to take place.” The angel in 22:16 is also obviously the same angel in the prologue for similar reasons. They are obviously one and the same angel, and the connection with this fact is also a clear testament to the Deity of Christ.

And Coming Around Full Circle….

The entire context shows that it is Christ who is the One who is coming quickly. The Father is not coming quickly and it is totally begging the question to say that solely the Father is coming quickly representatively through Christ. The One who is coming quickly (who is identified as such unambiguously throughout the entire New Testament) is Christ. The One who is coming quickly also claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. It is an unequivocal reference to the Deity of Christ as the rest of the chapter even makes more explicit when the closing words are the call for Christ, not the Father, to come. The focus is on Christ who has already claimed the title “First and Last” earlier in the book.

Identical language (Isaiah 40:10) of YHWH’s coming is ascribed to Jesus Christ in this very passage in Revelation 22 (and the same language is claimed by Christ for Himself in the Gospels). That would be very odd indeed if an identity connection were not intended. In fact, this is a common phenomena… there are many OT passages that teach certain things about YHWH. As White ably states, “… for some strange reason in the NT we find the NT writers ransacking the Old Testament looking for these very phrases to apply to Jesus Christ. It would be rather strange if the writers of the New Testament did not believe in the Deity of Christ that they would search the Old Testament from stem to stern for phrases used of YHWH to apply to their Lord, and the examples are numerous.” Each one just on their own can be explained away with varying degrees of credibility, but the cumulative case is enormous, many of which are not just ascriptions of things that are “generic,” meaning that they do not have to apply exclusively to Deity, but of things that are inherent to Deity itself, as are the unequivocal application of the phrases “Alpha and Omega, First and Last, and Beginning and End” to Christ, our Great God and Savior. Amen.

[Sher]

Great job Dee Dee :thumb:

I would only point out your small error in bolding: "[...] 1, 2, and 22[b/] – and in [b]22 in which the Unitarian [...]" (9th paragraph) and perhaps, if I may be so bold, suggest an addition of the fact that the very preface of Revelation is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" ... Revelation is the uncovering of that which was previously not understood ... "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets" (Heb 1:1) ... and this Revelation of Jesus Christ is to "uncover" or reveal His deity.

[dizzle]

Thank you Sher!! I will take a look at that formatting issue. I did have that concept you addressed in an earlier version of the article, but took it out to streamline the main point, and since the article is to provoke Unitarian debate (I am surprisd not a peep so far), I wanted to keep the issues somewhat narrowed.

[Gavin]

great read, Dee Dee :thumb:

[Sher]

Today @ 10:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65103#post65103)
Dee Dee Warren:

Thank you Sher!! I will take a look at that formatting issue.You are very welcome :smile: I'm glad you didn't think I was nitpicking. I did have that concept you addressed in an earlier version of the article, but took it out to streamline the main point, and since the article is to provoke Unitarian debate (I am surprisd not a peep so far), I wanted to keep the issues somewhat narrowed. Understandable ... ignore the "Queen of Verbosity" and :rockon: .... :lol:

[dizzle]

JP of Tekton AM (www.tektonics.org) is going to host this article for me as well which is way cool.

[dizzle]

Thanks Gavin!!! This came out of a very old debate with Evangelion on this issue. He has never fully responded nor has the Lesser Evangelion.... nor come to think of it has Athanasian here who was somewhat critical (but based upon a total miscomprehension of one of my points) of it a little whiles ago. But then again, he has stated that he is leaning towards a different flavor of Unitarianism than Christadelphianism, ie Oneness which would not have a problem with the points I raised.....

[AnnieM]

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

One fer each DeeDee.

Reading chpt.s 21 & 22 slowly and without the added verse & chpt. #'s, and as whole & one .... how can one not see ?

Anyhow's, glad to have punched onto this alrighty.

Thanks !!!
Made me smile alrighty.

[dizzle]

Thank you Annie!!

[PRAISE]

Today @ 02:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71939#post71939)
Dee Dee Warren:

Thank you Annie!!

It's no wonder you're an administrator, DD! Wow! Great Job!:thumb:

PRAISE:thumb:

[Kevin W. Graham]

I point out that Christ has already taken the title of “First and Last” in Revelation 1:16.

I think you mean Rev 1:17. ?

I'm not sure there is much I'd disagree with here, although I haven't read this in detail just yet and I'm not sure exactly what the Unitarian position is.

I do believe that the texual evidence, when taken into consideration, reveals a transition whereby Christ becomes the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1:11 in the KJV has a reference to Alpha and Omega as applied to Jesus Christ. This title is absent in the RSV and the ancient texts. It appears only in the Receptus and hence the KJV. We see again Rev 1:8 KJV using the Receptus deletes the words ho theos or The God and uses only kurios or Lord. Also, in Rev 21:6 is translated "it is done" as opposed to "it has occurred." So several elements indicating transition are tinkered with, by Trinitarian influence no doubt.)

I don't think that is the Unitarian position, but it certainly isn't Trinitarian either. Maybe I'll do a review of this when finals are over.

[dizzle]

Yes I do mean 1:17, thank you for pointing that out. I would ask if you do a review on what you mentioned (and I would be interested in that) that we start another thread for that. I would really like to keep it to Unitarian/Trinitarian here. Thanks Kevin!!

[AVmetro]

No bites yet? Doesn't surprise me :smile:

[AVmetro]

"If one were to just take the Revelation and the Isaiah passages together without importing Unitarian presuppositions into the text, the Deity of Christ is obvious."

Amen :smile:

[dizzle]

Tektonics has also agreed to host this article, and it can be found at:

http://www.tektonics.org/ddwao.html

Thank you JP!! Please go and check it out and visit the rest of the site while you are there.

[dizzle]

Ahh, the spin goes on. It appears that my article has attracted some Unitarian attention but that they do not wish to come here, to where the author is and where the article appears, to address it. That is fine, there are various reasons for that, a great many of them having nothing to do with poultry.

But that being said, as I see comments (Evangelion's and Fort's can be found here (http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=647)), I will make my observations here and not scatter them across the Net.

The first comment that I noted was the typical response that Jesus is simply bearing a title of God like an angel or man from the OT. Well that is certainly convenient and gets the Unitarian out of any pickle. What is ironic is that it was said by Fortigun who is the person that my article was originally written to counter, and his position then was that the Alpha and Omega was never used of Christ. Apparently now he has moved the goalposts and is arguing out of both sides of his mouth. If it doesn’t matter if it was ever really applied to Christ, then why argue it wasn’t in the first place. Very interesting.

The next comment was by Evangelion himself who stated in sum that this is all well and good but that “God of gods” is never applied to Christ. This is simply convenience, because you know what? If it were, the Unitarian would simply say that it was applied to Christ in the same way that an angel or man from the OT bore a title of God. Do you see the stacked here folks? I do.

[AVmetro]

Today @ 10:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76319#post76319)
Dee Dee Warren:

Ahh, the spin goes on. It appears that my article has attracted some Unitarian attention but that they do not wish to come here, to where the author is and where the article appears, to address it. That is fine, there are various reasons for that, a great many of them having nothing to do with poultry.

I think we know why. :smile:

But that being said, as I see comments (Evangelion's and Fort's can be found here (http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=647)), I will make my observations here and not scatter them across the Net.

The first comment that I noted was the typical response that Jesus is simply bearing a title of God like an angel or man from the OT. Well that is certainly convenient and gets the Unitarian out of any pickle.

That just means you made your point....

What is ironic is that it was said by Fortigun who is the person that my article was originally written to counter, and his position then was that the Alpha and Omega was never used of Christ. Apparently now he has moved the goalposts and is arguing out of both sides of his mouth. If it doesn’t matter if it was ever really applied to Christ, then why argue it wasn’t in the first place. Very interesting.

:rofl:

The next comment was by Evangelion himself who stated in sum that this is all well and good but that “God of gods” is never applied to Christ.

Hahaha So NOW it's "God of gods." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the title "God of gods" appears *anywhere* in the NT. :lol:

If Christ is the Almighty God (as you have demonstrated) then this necessitates that He be "God of gods." Let me guess, he takes the "All" in "Almighty' to be hyperbolic? :brow:

This is simply convenience, because you know what? If it were, the Unitarian would simply say that it was applied to Christ in the same way that an angel or man from the OT bore a title of God. Do you see the stacked here folks? I do.

Exactly.

[Piebald]

This is simply convenience, because you know what? If it were, the Unitarian would simply say that it was applied to Christ in the same way that an angel or man from the OT bore a title of God. Do you see the stacked here folks? I do.


Precisely. Hypothetically Jesus could be quoted as saying "I am God, the beginning and the end, I am the Divine Lord who led Israel from captivity in Egypt. I am your God."

and it could be explained away with

"Duh! He's just speaking as a divinely appointed representative of God!"

It's unfalsifiable and worthless.

[dizzle]

As is any arguments that says.. but He wasn't called (insert whatever is the Christadephian title de jeur) - for even if He was, that wouldn't convince them, so it is a less than forthright argument from them IMHO. The same thing with the "worship" argument too ironically..... it doesn't matter what is proven by the Trinitarian in that regard for at the end of the day, the Christadelphian Agency Eraser takes care of it all.

But here is the best part of the response so far, Ev's reason why he has not produced a comprehensive response can be summed up like this... "You are obviously wrong so there is no need for me to respond." He makes it sounds a whole lot better, but there it is.

[Piebald]

So NOW it's "God of gods." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the title "God of gods" appears *anywhere* in the NT

No, but it can certainly be connected with Christ:

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

Revelation 17:14
They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings–and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."

1 Timothy 6:15
which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

Note that he is the Lord of Lords, not "he is a divine representative of the Lord of Lords."

So Jesus is a Lord and God is a Lord, therefore Jesus is the Lord of Lords which makes him God's Lord but God is Jesus' Lord since God is the Lord of Lords too. I promise this is not double-speak. It all makes sense if you throw in divine representation somehow.

<Insert smiley face with shades to make this seem coherent>

[dizzle]

*snip*

[Piebald]

Have I just been neutered? :eek:

Oh, I get it

:bunny:

[dizzle]

:ddw:

[AVmetro]

I'm banned from his board and can't view it, so tell me.

After he said this:

""You are obviously wrong so there is no need for me to respond.""

Did he put a ":cool:" after it? If I were into gambling...

[Piebald]

<Smiley with Shades> = "Please believe that I am saying this with a straight face"

<ROTFL!> = "Please allow me to give the impression that I find this statement absurd"

<"and you know it"> = I humbly request that you uncritically embrace my strawman

[dizzle]

Now remember that is a paraphrase lest I be accused of lying.. but I will check and see. I was called a praeterist though so it was like old times sake.

[AVmetro]

Today @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77009#post77009)
Hamster:

&lt;Smiley with Shades&gt; = &quot;Please believe that I am saying this with a straight face&quot;

&lt;ROTFL!&gt; = &quot;Please allow me to give the impression that I find this statement absurd&quot;

&lt;&quot;and you know it&quot;&gt; = I humbly request that you uncritically embrace my strawman

<*snip*> = "I can't answer that"

:cool:

[Sher]

BTW, we also have Heb 12:2 "Author and Perfecter (Finisher) of faith" ... i.e., the first and the last :teeth:

That OL was a funny read, if not a bit sad.

[dizzle]

Okay now to deal with some more of the comments made.

First the Lesser Ev:

It's a very weak argument. And she's changed it since I last saw it. In fact, she's made it even weaker. She's only claiming that 'Alpha and Omega' is applied once to Christ.

The original version of the article is located here in the Christology forum of TWeb. I changed it very little, and the only points removed were those that did not deal directly with this issue but were side comments and ones about an alleged Trinitarian conspiracy. All the Lesser Ev has shown is that he has not been paying attention from the beginning since all I ever stated is that the “Alpha and Omega” is applied once to Christ. So how keeping that point exactly the same is making an argument “weaker” is beyond me, but rather I suspect that the Lesser Ev simply needed something cocky to say and that was as good as anything.

So at the end of the day (when you've stripped her argument of all the padding), she's trying to claim that if Christ bears one of the titles of God, he must be God (note the classic fallacy of equivocation used by Trinitarians here). On this basis, any man or angel who bore a title of God in the Scriptures, is God.

The funny thing is that my article was in response to an article by the Lesser Ev in which he strenuously argued that the Alpha and Omega were never applied to Christ and very unbelievably argued that “First and Last” meant something completely different when applied to Christ. This Christadelphian smokescreen gets them out of every jam. They first argue that divine titles are not given to Christ but even if they are it doesn’t matter because then they are simply representative titles. I dealt with all of this in my article, and dealt with the issue of why the theory of representation simply will not do here which has never been dealt with in full. Additionally, the only construct that makes sense in a redemptive representation construct is an incarnational theology. And who is to say that these titles ultimately belong to God? Perhaps He is simply a representative of an even greater god in a Mormonesque infinite regression?

Ev states:

For the record, it's worth noting that Jesus never bears the title "God of gods" (which is clearly and unequivocally ascribed to the Father.)

Of course, if it was also applied to the Son, this would certainly provide considerable support to a Bible-based defense of the Trinitarian Jesus. But for some strange reason, God's inspired writers (who are supposed to be "Trinitarians", let's remember) never managed to use it in this way. (Hmmm, I wonder why?)

And why do I suspect that if it were that Ev would argue that it proves nothing (the Americans are not in Baghdad) and that it was only applied to Christ representatively? And why do I suspect if Jesus were called that but not the “Alpha and Omega” that all of the sudden that would be magic title?

And now what qualifies for the Dumb Statement of the Thread Award:

The really odd thing is that Trinitarians seem to miss the fact that in both Revelation 1 and Revelation 21, the title 'Alpha and Omega' is used of the Father.
If that's Christ using it in Revelation 22, that makes him the Father. That's fine if you're a Oneness believer, but not so good for Trinitarians.


Wow, does he really think that anyone missed that and that we needed the incredible insight of the Lesser Ev to figure that out? The Alpha and Omega argument in Revelation is amenable to both a Trinitarian and Sabellian construct. Other passages are brought in to resolve that issue, and this statement by the Lesser Ev is either evidence of woeful lack of knowledge of what Trinitarianism teaches or a purposeful misdirect… neither of which are particularly flattering to the speaker. Since my goal was to confront Arian Unitarianism, I did not deal with the issues surrounding Sabellian Unitarianism.

But I see that they are now shifting the goalposts anyway… the original argument that I was making was that the Alpha and Omega was applied to Christ, and that the terms “First and Last” do not mean anything differently when uttered by Christ than when uttered by the Father.
Theoretically that point can be argued without even yet bringing the Trinity into the equation. Now it appears they want to concede that these divine terms are applied to Christ but want to argue that they are merely used representatively.

Ev tries to claim that it is a solely a Trinitarian presupposition and hermeneutic that is driving my analysis. Well that falls flat for several reasons, since I can still prove that the “Alpha and Omega” is applied to Christ without yet making any ultimate conclusions as to what that means. The whole original impetus to this discussion was Evangelion’s denial that the term was ever applied to Christ. Now he appears ready to concede that it is or can be (there is an always an “out” isn’t there?).

The weakness of the Trinitarian argument from "Alpha and Omega" has been recognized by Trinitarians themselves. This is proved by the fact that Trinitarian copyists later found it necessary to add a reference to Christ as "Alpha and Omega" in Revelation 1:11. (See http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=12&st=0#entry4797)

:rofl: Breaking news!! Evangelion has been able to transport himself back into time and obtain signed confessions from these alleged rogue copyists. What a buck-naked case of importing ones suppositions into textual criticism.

No such interpolation would have been included unless they recognized that this title is not unambiguously ascribed to Christ.

Really? And why does this alleged interpolation also use the title “First and Last”? Was that unclear too? Oh, I see, he only alleged these grand conspiracies for the phrases that he doesn’t like. If we were going to be consistent we would have to say that these nastily deceitful copyists added “First and Last” because it is not unambiguously applied to Christ elsewhere. Of course this all begs the question of why it would be so darned important to have any of these titles if they can all be hand-waved away by representation? Why didn’t these sneaky copyists insert “God of gods” in there to make the case nearly fool-proof as Evangelion earlier said would be great proof of the Trinity. Not only were these renegade copyists dishonest, they were incredibly stupid. :rofl:

Also here is a part from my original article that I did edit out, but now bears repeating in light of this nonsense.

From the Lesser Ev’s original article: I said before that Trinitarians will translate the text with a bias because it doesn't say what they need it to say. Now it's time to prove my assertion. Let's see how some of the 'Words of Christ in Red' Bibles treat this verse.

Well I made my entire argument without those verses (speaking of the disputed ones – and I argued my case from both angles – either assuming Christ was speaking or the angel was speaking), so there is not over-riding need to have them. All that is then proven is that some versions attribute the words to Christ. Motive is not proven. It does not prove any bias or dishonesty or conspiracy, that is something that the accuser is choosing to read into the text to libelously impugn the reputations of the editors and translators and is just plain dumb.

This sort of bad tactic comes up frequently with Jewish anti-missionaries I have debated. For example, anti-missionaries will point to certain claimed Messianic passages in Christian Bibles, and then in Jewish Bibles, and note that they are translated differently. They then jump to the unwarranted conclusion that the Christian Bibles are purposely mistranslated in order to give credence to the Messiahship of Jesus. No, all the anti-missionary has proven is that the translations are different. Much more needs to be done to prove deliberate deceit. And “Thou shalt not bear false witness” still holds, even when you don’t like the other’s theology.

Another common tactic of the Jewish anti-missionary is to quote certain alleged evangelical authorities (sound familiar??) who deny that certain Messianic passages are really Messianic, and make the same sort of spurious leap as is done here that these men speak for “Christianity,” and thus “proving” that certain passages are not Messianic at all (because a few fallible men were grievously wrong) and must have been made up as Messianic out of whole cloth by the rest of us. Ambush by alleged authority. All that is proven is that Christianity is not necessarily monolithic on every point by every one. Some great men have been greatly wrong. The anti-missionaries also get into bed in a whorish alliance with atheists and use the atheistic arguments against Christianity even though the very same men would use the very same sort of arguments against Judaism as well. But they don’t care. The ends justify the means. The same sort of thing happens here. I almost choked when I saw Hugh Schonfield quoted authoritatively. Hugh’s logic and “scholarship” led him to propose a theory in which Jesus was a “conniving, cunning, and deceptive messianic pretender.” (Geisler)

But back to the alleged Trinitarian plot to falsely make Jesus out to be the Alpha and the Omega with the insinuation that this is some sort of invention that made its way into manuscripts dating from around the 5th century or so since earlier manuscripts (the Alexandrian text family) does not contain certain verses in Revelation 1 identifying Jesus as the Alpha and Omega (though said manuscripts do contain 22:13). Of course, the Unitarian assumption is then that those disputed verses are necessary to identify Jesus in that manner since they think that they have explained away verse 22:13 which I have already dealt with. However, as the preface to the NKJV states, (without specifically mentioning those particular disputed verses), many verses which do not appear in the Alexandrian family are attested to or can be adduced by writing from the Fathers. Not everyone accepts the prima facie superiority of the Alexandrian texts (and I am not referring to the wacky KJV-Only crowd). Are all of those scholars Trinitarians Conspirators as well?? The Illuminati better look out, they may be dethroned by this dastardly group.

Do the ante-Nicene (to push back the testimony to the dates of the Alexandrian family of texts and before) Fathers refer to Jesus as the “Alpha and the Omega” and use it as a title of Divinity? Yes. That means either 22:13 was understood by them in that manner (and that appears to be the case) or the disputed verses in Revelation 1 were there which also make that identification, or a combination of both. Even if this does not prove that the disputed verses were there, it shows that this identification was made, even without them!! (or they were there… either way) thus eliminating the need for any alleged Trinitarian editorial conspiracy.

Tertullian in speaking out against the heretics Marcus and Colarbasus makes mention that Jesus said that He was the Alpha and Omega and proceeds to describe a novel heresy that these two men made out of that statement utilizing supposed mystical meanings of the Greek alphabet. He does not deny the validity of the words to Christ, just the heresy spawned by these two. (Against All Heresies) In fact he affirms that ascription of that title to Christ, as well as “First and Last” and “Beginning and End” to Christ in another treatise dealing with monogamy. (On Monogamy)

Clement refers to Christ with “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End” several times and in allusion to His role in creation and identity as the “Word”. (Book IV and VI)

This is echoed by Cyprian who mentions the phrases “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End” in reference to Christ and in the same passage speaks of the Incarnation. (Treatise XII – Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews)

Thus to say that this is some modern Trinitarian conspiracy is plain reckless and libelous.

Now back to Ev…..

An additional interpolation is found in Revelation 1:8, where the words "the beginning and the end" have been added by (equally dishonest) Trinitarian copyists.

:rofl: Yeah sure thing there Ev. Now let me ask the honest reader something. There is a dispute today over whether or not 1:8 refers to the Father or Christ. If it refers to Christ, and these early copyists believed it did, why in the world would have they have to deceitfully plot to add “the beginning and the end” when “alpha and omega” is already indisputably in that text, and why then would they allegedly have to add “alpha and omega” in 1:11 if it were already in 1:8? This is beyond any common sense whatsoever. Now if it refers to the Father, and the early copyists believe that it did, why does Ev care if anything was added at least as far as this dastardly Trinitarian conspiracy is concerned? None of this makes any sense but rather appears to be paranoid ramblings born by theological prejudice. Also, interestingly, the texts that supposedly were “altered” by these corrupt copying have dropped the word “God” from 1:8. Now if they were on this conspiratorial mission to prove the deity of Christ, why on God’s green earth would they drop that? Or why didn’t they add the word “Jesus” or add something to make it clear that Jesus was speaking? For guys on a mission to deceive they really stunk at it.

And my argument depended on none of the disputed verses. They simply were not needed.

To digress one second….

The second time was in response to Dee Dee herself, who pointed out that I had misread her argument in a couple of places.

Well I will give Ev credit for acknowledging his mistake and not foolishly repeating it as his brother has done with his eschatology gaffe….

At the end of the day though Ev begs off a comprehensive response stating:

Well, I later realized that there was no need to come back to it at all, since the argument itself is fundamentally flawed.

Translation: You are wrong so there is no need for me to prove it comprehensively.

[Tsmith]

06-21-2003 @ 10:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129657#post129657)
Dee Dee Warren:

Since we have some new members, I draw attention once again to my Alpha and Omega article here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=62520#post62520

A powerful testament to the unqualified deity of Christ.

A couple of errors in your reasoning:

1) Ignoring Revelation's use of personal pronoun-proper name construction to indicate a speaker change.

2) Ignoring contextual indicators on a title's meaning (specifically 1:17 as expanded by 1:18).

3) Ignoring context (specifically Rev 1:4,5 with regards to Rev 1:8).

4) The application of the same title to multiple persons in scripture (a few called king of kings).

These factors combined disprove anything that might be attempted by this article.

-Tony

[dizzle]

You simply stated summary points and did not prove anything. Take the article, go point by point and prove your assertions, simply stating them does nothing.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 02:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130395#post130395)
Dee Dee Warren:

You simply stated summary points and did not prove anything. Take the article, go point by point and prove your assertions, simply stating them does nothing.

Well this would take a while, so I'll just reply to the critical parts.



Now in order to show that it is Christ speaking in our passage under examination, I point out that Christ has already taken the title of “First and Last” in Revelation 1:16. The Unitarian argument then counters that although the Father is called the “First and Last” in several places in Isaiah, Christ is called the “First and Last” in Revelation for an entirely different reason. This is not true, but rather a poor attempt to explain away the Revelation passages. If one were to just take the Revelation and the Isaiah passages together without importing Unitarian presuppositions into the text, the Deity of Christ is obvious. Revelation is recognized as being an accumulation of hundreds of allusions to OT texts. There is no indication whatsoever that “First and Last” is being used for two entirely different reasons (and the exalted nature of that very term would make it impossible in the first place). That is reading one’s preset theology into the text and is blatantly circular.


First, we cannot compare Revelation to Isaiah, as the text is significantly different.

LXX Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith God the King of Israel, and the God of hosts that delivered him; I am the first, and I am hereafter: beside me there is no God.

The Greek on the key part here actually reads:

EGW PRWTON KAI EGW META

Now in Revelation, the text actually reads:

hO PRWTON KAI hO ESCATON

Significant difference.

As for Christ being called first and last, there is only one text that is without dispute and that is Revelation 1:17. However, let us read 17 and 18.

Rev 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet, as dead. And He put His right hand on me, saying to me, Do not fear. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the Living One; and I became dead; and, behold, I am living forever and ever. Amen. And I have the keys to hell, and of death.

We see here that Jesus being called first and last is clearly qualified to be in relation to his death and resurrection.

Now, I would argue that all three times that “First and Last” is used in Revelation, it is clearly used of Christ, but just for the sake of discussion, we will assume for a moment that in Revelation 22:13, it is the Father who is speaking, and He claims to be the “First and the Last.” However, in Revelation 1:17 Christ claims that title for Himself. The connection is obviously meant to be made to the declaration in Revelation 22:13 (both uses have very near proximities to threats/warnings/promises of “coming quickly”) in which it is given as an unequivocal declaration of Deity and explained by its repetition (in case we were thick – which it appears that we are) of the synonymous terms of “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End.” “First and Last” does not mean anything substantially different from “Alpha and Omega” or “Beginning and End,” it is simply sequentially alphabetically expressing the same thing that was expressed sequentially numerically and sequentially temporally. This is so patently obvious that the burden of proof is upon those who would assert otherwise. They are synonymous and yet we all agree that Jesus claims the title of “First and Last” for Himself at least once. The enormous burden of proof is on the one who wants to claim two entirely different meanings for the same title within the same Book in similar contexts (and even possibly if the textual variant in verse 1:11 is correct within 7 verses of each other), especially in light of its importance as a title of Deity in Isaiah, and synonymous pairing in 22:13 with undisputed titles of Deity.


This is theologically based reasoning. Perhaps we should also assume that because Jesus, God and others are ALL called King of Kings, that everyone who has this title is God. However, we know better than this.

That being said, however, if one is going to maintain it is the angel continuously speaking, then there really is no warrant at all for changing the speaker then to Christ at verse 22:16, and that change I would say is in fact most likely motivated by Unitarian bias. There is no compelling textual warrant for it and in fact explicit warrant against it if the Unitarian argument were true because the very same reasons that would motivate someone to hold that the angel is speaking up through verse 15 would be just as valid to have the angel continuing to speak. In other words, the Unitarian argument claimed that because verse 16 says, “I, Jesus,…” then Jesus must then be speaking, but wants to have it both ways since the same angel supposedly says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” which is an explicit personal identification as well, but that occurrence does not necessitate there that the actual “Alpha and Omega” be actually speaking. This is highly inconsistent.

Actually, there is good reason within the text to indicate a change in speaker. That being that other times that this type of grammar appears it is without dispute a change in speaker. Rev 1:9 is a great example. Clearly the personal pronoun-proper name construction indicates a change in speaker.

Second, the Unitarian argument must assume that “Alpha and Omega” is never used of Christ, but that is assuming what must proven and was not proven. And in fact, “Alpha and Omega” is synonymous with “First and Last” which has been used of Christ. The Unitarian problem is that they must maintain that Revelation 1:8 using the title “Alpha and Omega,” refers only to the Father, so then it must only be referring to the Father here. But the term is synonymous with one of the titles already unambiguously being used to refer to Christ. Also I say yet again, the Unitarian is also highly inconsistent with his “rules” here also because he claimed that one of the “proofs” that the Father was speaking in verse 1:8 was that the Father had already been earlier identified as the one “who is, and who was, and who is to come.” However, the Unitarian does not apply that same standard to the term “First and Last” for if he did he would have to argue that Jesus is in fact speaking in 22:13.

Of course the problem with this is that the speaker in Rev 1:8 is said to be the Almighty, only the Father is ever unquestionably called such and the Father, as "the one who is, who was and who is coming" is distinguished from Jesus directly in the context of the Father being called such.

Identical language (Isaiah 40:10) of YHWH’s coming is ascribed to Jesus Christ in this very passage in Revelation 22 (and the same language is claimed by Christ for Himself in the Gospels). That would be very odd indeed if an identity connection were not intended. In fact, this is a common phenomena… there are many OT passages that teach certain things about YHWH. As White ably states, “… for some strange reason in the NT we find the NT writers ransacking the Old Testament looking for these very phrases to apply to Jesus Christ. It would be rather strange if the writers of the New Testament did not believe in the Deity of Christ that they would search the Old Testament from stem to stern for phrases used of YHWH to apply to their Lord, and the examples are numerous.” Each one just on their own can be explained away with varying degrees of credibility, but the cumulative case is enormous, many of which are not just ascriptions of things that are “generic,” meaning that they do not have to apply exclusively to Deity, but of things that are inherent to Deity itself, as are the unequivocal application of the phrases “Alpha and Omega, First and Last, and Beginning and End” to Christ, our Great God and Savior. Amen.

The problem is that Isaiah 40:10 talks of Jehovah's strong arm ruling, and we know that Arm to be Christ. That said, there are also OT scriptures written of David, Isaiah and others that had fulfillment in Christ. Just as we do not try and state that Jesus is actually these persons, we should not try and say because of this that Jesus is also Jehovah.

-Tony

[dizzle]

Ahh, the moves one will do to rob Christ of His rightful glory, but at least you did better than before and better than Uriah who has never substantively answered and claimed he did. I take time to respond to somewhat substantive responses and I will be back to this.

[John Reece]

Attempts to represent the biblical languages usually catch my attention.

Tsmith:

First, we cannot compare Revelation to Isaiah, as the text is significantly different.

LXX Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith God the King of Israel, and the God of hosts that delivered him; I am the first, and I am hereafter: beside me there is no God.

The Greek on the key part here actually reads:

EGW PRWTON KAI EGW META

Now in Revelation, the text actually reads:

hO PRWTON KAI hO ESCATON

Significant difference.

I know that some of my favorite people here do not believe it, but Revelation was not written in Greek, and neither was Isaiah 44:6 : both are translations of Semitic originals. We can bypass the disputed matter of the original language of Revelation, because the Greek is quite sufficient for the meaning thereof.

The case is different with Isaiah 44:6 : We do have the original Hebrew, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the LXX to serve as the ultimate authority re the issue at hand.

Tsmith:
The Greek on the key part here actually reads:

EGW PRWTON KAI EGW META

First of all, not knowing the language, you truncated the quote of the text. But never mind that; it would not matter if you quoted it perfectly, because something was lost on the way from the original language (Hebrew) to the Greek version. It is the former, not the latter, that is the ultimate authority to which we should turn.

The Hebrew text is rightly rendered in English “I am the first and I am the last”, which is exactly what we have in the Greek text of Revelation: an assertion by the speaker that he is the first and the last.

Here is the Hebrew text : אני ראשון ואני אחרון.

The word in red is the one that is rightly rendered into English “last”. The lexical authority for that fact is Koehler-Baumgartner, as provided in exquisitely succinct English by William L. Holladay in A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament:

אחרון c) last . . . (God, first and last) Isaiah 44:6 . . .

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130663#post130663)
John Reece:

Attempts to represent the biblical languages usually catch my attention.



I know that some of my favorite people here do not believe it, but Revelation was not written in Greek, and neither was Isaiah 44:6 : both are translations of Semitic originals. We can bypass the disputed matter of the original language of Revelation, because the Greek is quite sufficient for the meaning thereof.

The case is different with Isaiah 44:6 : We do have the original Hebrew, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the LXX to serve as the ultimate authority re the issue at hand.



First of all, not knowing the language, you truncated the quote of the text. But never mind that; it would not matter if you quoted it perfectly, because something was lost on the way from the original language (Hebrew) to the Greek version. It is the former, not the latter, that is the ultimate authority to which we should turn.

I love how people are so accusatory on what people supposedly do and do not know. I'll ignore this though..



The Hebrew text is rightly rendered in English “I am the first and I am the last”, which is exactly what we have in the Greek text of Revelation: an assertion by the speaker that he is the first and the last.

Here is the Hebrew text : &amp;#1488;&amp;#1504;&amp;#1497; &amp;#1512;&amp;#1488;&amp;#1513;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1503; &amp;#1493;&amp;#1488;&amp;#1504;&amp;#1497; &amp;#1488;&amp;#1495;&amp;#1512;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1503;.

The word in red is the one that is rightly rendered into English “last”. The lexical authority for that fact is Koehler-Baumgartner, as provided in exquisitely succinct English by William L. Holladay in A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament:

&amp;#1488;&amp;#1495;&amp;#1512;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1503; c) last . . . (God, first and last) Isaiah 44:6 . . .

[/quote]

Let us get a bit fuller of a definition from BDB:

1) behind, following, subsequent, western
1a) behind, hindermost, western (of location)
1b) later, subsequent, latter, last (of time)

So actually, the LXX is a very good translations of this verse.

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

06-21-2003 @ 02:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129657#post129657)
Dee Dee Warren:

Since we have some new members, I draw attention once again to my Alpha and Omega article here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=62520#post62520

A powerful testament to the unqualified deity of Christ.

DeeDee said:

Revelation 22:12
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

The specific Unitarian argument that I will deal with basically states that neither Christ nor the Father is directly speaking in this passage, but rather the angel that John was previously speaking with in the preceding verses has continued speaking as the representative of the Father. Of course that begs the question of why the angel could not be speaking as the representative of Christ if indeed the angel is still speaking. In answering these questions, there are many assumptions made in the Unitarian argument to this passage, the foundation of which is the assumption of the unipersonality of God and a “functional- only” Christology


Dear DeeDee,
Perhaps you might consider a contextual and grammatical argument that refutes the proposition that the Alpha and Omega at Revelation 22:12 is Jesus.

Greek Lexical
The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. The Greek phrase MET’ EMOU (with me) is used of close personal association. Thus Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich on page 636 places this phrase in the category of “close association” like “the disciples with Jesus."

OT Reference
Note next that Revelation has a parallel to Isaiah 40:10. The UBS Greek Critical text maintains that Revelation 22:12 is a quote from Isaiah 40:10. The LOCI CITATI VEL AALLEGATI from the Nestle-Aland 27th edition concurs.


Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. – ASV



The arm of Jehovah is the Messiah (cf. Isaiah 53:1,5; John 12:28) The “arm” and the “reward” are therefore the Messiah.

Since the reward in Revelation 22:12 is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Alpha and Omega must be the Father.

It is only by disregarding the Greek of MET’ EMOU as a personal designatin that one can consider the “reward” to be impersonal, missing the fulfillment of a prophecy in the book of Isaiah regarding Jehovah and his Messiah.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[markporter]

" It is only by disregarding the Greek of MET’ EMOU as a personal designatin that one can consider the “reward” to be impersonal, missing the fulfillment of a prophecy in the book of Isaiah regarding Jehovah and his Messiah."

I don't know anything whatsoever about biblical languages, but is it not possible that this is referring to the speaker himself? He is the reward?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131053#post131053)
Cal_Minian:

Dear DeeDee,
Perhaps you might consider a contextual and grammatical argument that refutes the proposition that the Alpha and Omega at Revelation 22:12 is Jesus.

Greek Lexical
The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. The Greek phrase MET’ EMOU (with me) is used of close personal association. Thus Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich on page 636 places this phrase in the category of “close association” like “the disciples with Jesus.&quot;

OT Reference
Note next that Revelation has a parallel to Isaiah 40:10. The UBS Greek Critical text maintains that Revelation 22:12 is a quote from Isaiah 40:10. The LOCI CITATI VEL AALLEGATI from the Nestle-Aland 27th edition concurs.

The arm of Jehovah is the Messiah (cf. Isaiah 53:1,5; John 12:28) The “arm” and the “reward” are therefore the Messiah.

Since the reward in Revelation 22:12 is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Alpha and Omega must be the Father.

It is only by disregarding the Greek of MET’ EMOU as a personal designatin that one can consider the “reward” to be impersonal, missing the fulfillment of a prophecy in the book of Isaiah regarding Jehovah and his Messiah.

Kind Regards,
Cal

I happen to own a copy of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, W. Bauer, W. Arndt, F. Gingrich, F. Danker, University of Chicago Press, 1979. And while pagination will vary from issue to issue I don't think it varies by 130 pages. The lexical entry for meta in my copy begins on pg. 509.

I cannot find a reference to "close association" but on pg. 510, § A,II,6 "to show a close connection betw. two nouns upon the first of which the main emphasis lies." It does not list Rev 22:12, nor any reference to disciples.

Do you have a better reference? Page 636 of my BAGD begins with pathr and ends with patriV.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130667#post130667)
Tsmith:

I love how people are so accusatory on what people supposedly do and do not know. I'll ignore this though..

Let us get a bit fuller of a definition from BDB:

1) behind, following, subsequent, western
1a) behind, hindermost, western (of location)
1b) later, subsequent, latter, last (of time)

So actually, the LXX is a very good translations of this verse.

-Tony

The Jewish Publication Society disagrees with you on this being a very good translation. And I don't think they have any Trinitarian axe to grind. The JPS is available online if you wish to verify this.
JPS Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131327#post131327)
OldShepherd:



The Jewish Publication Society disagrees with you on this being a very good translation. And I don't think they have any Trinitarian axe to grind. The JPS is available online if you wish to verify this.
JPS Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.


They also translate EHYEH as I AM, when we know this is in error. The Last is not a bad translation, but my simple point was the the LXX was accurate in the translation of this verse.

If I recall, though I may be wrong, the JPS OT is not something accepted by Orthodox Jews anyway.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131306#post131306)
OldShepherd:



I happen to own a copy of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, W. Bauer, W. Arndt, F. Gingrich, F. Danker, University of Chicago Press, 1979. And while pagination will vary from issue to issue I don't think it varies by 130 pages. The lexical entry for meta in my copy begins on pg. 509.

I cannot find a reference to &quot;close association&quot; but on pg. 510, &amp;#167; A,II,6 &quot;to show a close connection betw. two nouns upon the first of which the main emphasis lies.&quot; It does not list Rev 22:12, nor any reference to disciples.

Do you have a better reference? Page 636 of my BAGD begins with pathr and ends with patriV.

Dear Carlos,
As I recently posted on the thread where I present the devasting argument against the doctrine of the Trinity not being taught in context by any bible writer, I have been quoteing from BDAG which was released in 2000.

However, if you look on page 510 in your own copy of BAG in the first paragraph in section C. it lists what I quoted in -- a . which at first glance looks identical to BDAG including the reference to Revelation 22:12.

It's time to update your library, OldShepherd!

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

06-22-2003 @ 06:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130413#post130413)
Dee Dee Warren:

Ahh, the moves one will do to rob Christ of His rightful glory, but at least you did better than before and better than Uriah who has never substantively answered and claimed he did. I take time to respond to somewhat substantive responses and I will be back to this.

Dear DeeDee,
I guess it is a matter of perspective. The God and Father of Jesus Christ says at Isaiah 42:8 that he will not share his own personal glory with another.


ASV Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my
glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto
graven images.


We know this is the Father speaking because he speaks of putting his spirit on his Messiah in the verses which precede that statement.


ASV Isaiah 42:1 Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my
chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit
upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. 2 He
will not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor cause it to be heard in
the street. 3 A bruised reed will he not break, and a dimly
burning wick will he not quench: he will bring forth justice
in truth. 4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have
set justice in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.
5 Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens,
and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth
and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto
the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:



In my view it is you who dishonor the God and Father of Jesus Christ by giving the glory due only him to his Son.

It is only by assigning the proper glory to each of them that we truly glorify them.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 12:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131204#post131204)
markporter:

&quot; It is only by disregarding the Greek of MET’ EMOU as a personal designatin that one can consider the “reward” to be impersonal, missing the fulfillment of a prophecy in the book of Isaiah regarding Jehovah and his Messiah.&quot;

I don't know anything whatsoever about biblical languages, but is it not possible that this is referring to the speaker himself? He is the reward?

I have heard of the idiom in English where someone is "beside themself" but never "with themself" unless they are in the looney bin.

In the Greek the phrase met emou is only used when one person is with another. In addition the Bauer lexicon agrees with my own research into the matter.



Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

Yesterday @ 09:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131053#post131053)
Cal_Minian:
Perhaps you might consider a contextual and grammatical argument that refutes the proposition that the Alpha and Omega at Revelation 22:12 is Jesus.

Greek Lexical
The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. The Greek phrase MET’ EMOU (with me) is used of close personal association. Thus Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich on page 636 places this phrase in the category of “close association” like “the disciples with Jesus.&quot;

It is also used of things, such as hands, and actions, such as dipping. It also occurs in quotations in the synoptics, Acts, and Pauline literature. You know what? None of that matters. John uses it in a variety of ways, including to mention who is speaking to John (e.g. Rev 1:12, 4:1, etc). This argument is irrelevant, what matters is your following argument.

OT Reference
Note next that Revelation has a parallel to Isaiah 40:10. The UBS Greek Critical text maintains that Revelation 22:12 is a quote from Isaiah 40:10. The LOCI CITATI VEL AALLEGATI from the Nestle-Aland 27th edition concurs.


The arm of Jehovah is the Messiah (cf. Isaiah 53:1,5; John 12:28) The “arm” and the “reward” are therefore the Messiah.

This is a strong argument, but you made two major mistakes, one leading into the other.

1) This is not a direct quote, but an adaption of Isaiah. Clearly when an OT passage is being adapted, something is happening that we should pay attention to, something the author is trying to point out.

2) Since this is an adaption, something different is therefore being said. John is not reiterating Isaiah, for he changes the quote. Instead, John is saying something different than Isaiah.

John says: Idou ercomai tacu kai o misqoV mou met emou apodounai ekastw wV to ergon estin autou.

Isaiah says Idou kurioV meta iscuoV ercetai kai o braciwn meta kurieiaV idou o misqoV autou met autou kai to ergon enantion autou.


As for the arm of the Lord being the Messiah, you may want to read Isaiah 51:9 and 59:1.

51:9 Awake, awake! Clothe yourself with strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days gone by, as in generations of old. Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces, who pierced that monster through?


59:1 Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear.


These sure support the pre-existence of the "arm of the Lord" and His work as God in salvation of His people. Interesting, more evidence for the Trinity.

Since the reward in Revelation 22:12 is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Alpha and Omega must be the Father.

That is an assumption you make. In fact, misqoV is never used of a person in the NT, it always refers to an impersonal item. In the OT it refers twice to children and once to God Himself (Gen 15:1). Of course this usage in Genesis 15:1 is extremely important since it clearly shows that God Himself is the reward to all peoples, something you argue the Messiah is. However, I could easily argue that we are both right, it is God who is the Messiah who is our reward. But I won't argue that, I'll just let you think about it.

It is only by disregarding the Greek of MET’ EMOU as a personal designatin that one can consider the “reward” to be impersonal, missing the fulfillment of a prophecy in the book of Isaiah regarding Jehovah and his Messiah.

Kind Regards,
Cal


This is actually quite false. It is through a misreading of the text that one considers God to be the speaker. However, even if it is God who is the speaker, we know that God Himself is the reward anyway, if God is the speaker.

If Jesus is the speaker, much more likely contextually, then it is quite ambiguous as to what the reward is (it very well could still be God Himself due to the contents of Rev 21.

Why do I think Jesus is the speaker here?

1) Every time it is God who speaks (or the Father, depending on your point of view), it is introduced by a formlua such as "a vopice from heaven said" or "a loud voice from heaven cried out." Never does God speak without a formal introduction of someone saying something. However, this would be the one exception in all of the Johannine writings! Not very likely.

2) Revelation 22:20 makes it very clear that it is Jesus who continually says "I am coming soon."

He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.


In fact, Jesus is repeatedly the one who says "I am coming soon" with the words not being on anyone elses lips. It occurs only in 3:11, 22:7, 12, and 20. If you think it is God speaking in 22:12, then He is in fact Jesus since Jesus is the one coming soon (see Revelation 19).

3) Without any break in speech, Jesus is identified as the speaker in 22:16. Therefore, it is only natural to assume that there is a connection between 22:16 and 22:12.

1 is important, but this could be an exception. However, by combining 2 and 3 you see that it cannot be anyone but Jesus who is speaking here. Any other way of taking this verse makes a mockery of the grammar.

Finally, let me offer this as well:

Isaiah 40:10 is not the only parallel to this verse, Isaiah 62:11 is as well.

Rev 22:12 Idou ercomai tacu kai o misqoV mou met emou apodounai ekastw wV to ergon estin autou.

Isaiah 62:11 idou soi o swthr paragivetai ecwn ton eautou misqon kai to ergon pro proswpou autou.

In this verse, God makes it explicitly clear that the reward is coming, that it may or may not be Him, but that it includes His restoration of Jerusalem. In other words this fits the context of Revelation 22 much better, and we all know that John rarely quotes verbatim passages, instead only using key words to pull up a theme (here looking at misqoV in particular.

Thus, it is quite clear that Calm looked at the OT impact before understanding the actual verse in question and without fully realizing the true impact his stance would force on him. It is quite clear from what John gives us in the text that there can be nobody but Jesus using these words.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 12:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131642#post131642)
Jaltus:


It is also used of things, such as hands, and actions, such as dipping. It also occurs in quotations in the synoptics, Acts, and Pauline literature. You know what? None of that matters. John uses it in a variety of ways, including to mention who is speaking to John (e.g. Rev 1:12, 4:1, etc). This argument is irrelevant, what matters is your following argument.



Dear Jaltus,
You are not being thorough in your response to this point. You have not given any examples where met emou is used with respect to someone who is "with" something that is not a person. BDAG 636 says of Revelation 22:12 (sc. ESTIN) where sc. means scilicet indicating
that the verb ESTIN (is) is understood as in "to be with someone." Your examples use MET' EMOU as a subordinate clause to another verb like "speak" in Revelation 1:12 with elalei met emou


You say my following argument is more weighty? I disagree. People can twist what they say is "context" in many different ways but grammar does not lie.

There is no example where MET' EMOU is used like in Revelation 22:12 where someone is not "with" another person.

Your supposed counter examples have no merit.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

I never said it did not include other people, my point was that the object was not always the people, however.

dipped: Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20,

hand: Luke 22:21

My point was that your argument was in fact pointless. I just happened to be more specific than you in dealing with occurrences.

Of course with me signifies someone or something else is indeed with you. I pointed out that one use was with a hand, not a person.

I did find a number of non-personal references in the OT.

Exodus 33:12 uses an impersonal reference, as do Job 17:16, 28:14, and 29:20.

I'd also look at Judg 11:27, I Samuel 20:14, Psalm 38:10, and others.

As you can see, you need to do a bit more research.

[Cal_Minian]

part two

OT Reference
Note next that Revelation has a parallel to Isaiah 40:10. The UBS Greek Critical text maintains that Revelation 22:12 is a quote from Isaiah 40:10. The LOCI CITATI VEL AALLEGATI from the Nestle-Aland 27th edition concurs. The arm of Jehovah is the Messiah (cf. Isaiah 53:1,5; John 12:28) The “arm” and the “reward” are therefore the Messiah.


Jaltus:
This is a strong argument, but you made two major mistakes, one leading into the other.

1) This is not a direct quote, but an adaption of Isaiah. Clearly when an OT passage is being adapted, something is happening that we should pay attention to, something the author is trying to point out.

2) Since this is an adaption, something different is therefore being said. John is not reiterating Isaiah, for he changes the quote. Instead, John is saying something different than Isaiah.

Cal:
Dear Jaltus,
You are disregarding what both UBS and NA27 say on this matter and therefore I cannot merely take your word for this. The differences can be understood merely as Isaiah speaking in the third person about Jehovah coming with the Messiah in Isaiah and in Revelation 22:12 with Jehovah speaking that his reward is with him.

You quoted the two in Greek but have failed to show any significant differences. You have not demonstrated any substantial difference between the two quotes and have not refuted myself, Bruce Metzger of the UBS or Kurt and Barbara Aland from the Nestle-Aland Greek critical aparatus.

Jaltus:
As for the arm of the Lord being the Messiah, you may want to read Isaiah 51:9 and 59:1.

51:9 Awake, awake! Clothe yourself with strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days gone by, as in generations of old. Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces, who pierced that monster through?

59:1 Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear.

These sure support the pre-existence of the "arm of the Lord" and His work as God in salvation of His people. Interesting, more evidence for the Trinity.

Cal:
I agree that the Son of God pre-existed and was used by the Father as him “arm” in a variety of ways. That in no way proves he is the Almighty God.

Regardless of the view as to Jesus’ pre-existence, my use of this verse to identify the “reward” of Isaiah 40:10 as being the reference of the “reward” of Revelation 22:12 is still very much intact.

You quote me with:
Since the reward in Revelation 22:12 is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Alpha and Omega must be the Father.



Jaltus:
That is an assumption you make. In fact, misqos is never used of a person in the NT, it always refers to an impersonal item. In the OT it refers twice to children and once to God Himself (Gen 15:1). Of course this usage in Genesis 15:1 is extremely important since it clearly shows that God Himself is the reward to all peoples, something you argue the Messiah is. However, I could easily argue that we are both right, it is God who is the Messiah who is our reward. But I won't argue that, I'll just let you think about it.

Cal:
Revelation 22:12 has as it’s reference not the GNT but the LXX. The “reward” in Isaiah, which is also the Messiah, is therefore the proper referent. Also, as I showed in my previous post, the particular grammatical usage of MET’ EMOU cannot be anything other than a reference to someone being “with” someone.

In fact every English translation I have looked at so far supply “is” which indicates they agree with what BDAG said about this construction. Do you read a bible that agrees with your view? If so, what translation is it?


You quote me again with:
It is only by disregarding the Greek of MET’ EMOU as a personal designation that one can consider the “reward” to be impersonal, missing the fulfillment of a prophecy in the book of Isaiah regarding Jehovah and his Messiah.

Kind Regards,
Cal


Jaltus:
This is actually quite false. It is through a misreading of the text that one considers God to be the speaker. However, even if it is God who is the speaker, we know that God Himself is the reward anyway, if God is the speaker.

Cal:
Really? That is not what the Greek says. And it is not what the English says either. Even if it is a “something” instead of a “someone” (which the Greek denies) that thing is being distinguished FROM the speaker!!!

Jaltus:
If Jesus is the speaker, much more likely contextually, then it is quite ambiguous as to what the reward is (it very well could still be God Himself due to the contents of Rev 22

Cal:
You are apparently ignoring that Revelation 22:12 is a reference to Isaiah 40:10 which is Jehovah coming with his Messiah. BTW in the first fulfillment of Isaiah that was Cyrus who was not God. By your logic above Cyrus is God!


Jaltus:
Why do I think Jesus is the speaker here?

1) Every time it is God who speaks (or the Father, depending on your point of view), it is introduced by a formlua such as "a vopice from heaven said" or "a loud voice from heaven cried out." Never does God speak without a formal introduction of someone saying something. However, this would be the one exception in all of the Johannine writings! Not very likely.

Cal:
You continue to ignore the fact that this is a reference to Isaiah 40:10. The “formula” that you mention does not exist in the LXX, does it?

Jaltus:
2) Revelation 22:20 makes it very clear that it is Jesus who continually says "I am coming soon."

Cal:
I do not disagree that Jesus is coming. In Isaiah 40:10 it is God who is coming with his Messiah and therefore they are BOTH coming.

Jaltus:
Scripture Verse:
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

In fact, Jesus is repeatedly the one who says "I am coming soon" with the words not being on anyone elses lips. It occurs only in 3:11, 22:7, 12, and 20. If you think it is God speaking in 22:12, then He is in fact Jesus since Jesus is the one coming soon (see Revelation 19).

Cal:
They are both coming. Isaiah 40:10 proves that. There are also other places but this post is already getting too lengthy.

Jaltus:
3) Without any break in speech, Jesus is identified as the speaker in 22:16. Therefore, it is only natural to assume that there is a connection between 22:16 and 22:12.

Cal:
My copy of the New King James Version is a red-letter edition. Verses 12 and 13 are red and verse 16 is read. Verses 14-15 are black. Those publishers evidently do not feel the way you do. Therefore why should I accept your opinion on this matter?


Jaltus:
1 is important, but this could be an exception. However, by combining 2 and 3 you see that it cannot be anyone but Jesus who is speaking here. Any other way of taking this verse makes a mockery of the grammar.

Cal:
You have not properly considered the Greek grammar of MET’ EMOU or the parallel between the “reward” in Isaiah 40:10 being a reference to the “reward” in Revelation 22:12. You also make assumptions as to Jesus speaking all the way from verse 12 to verse 16 which the NKJV does not do.

Jaltus:
Finally, let me offer this as well: Isaiah 40:10 is not the only parallel to this verse, Isaiah 62:11 is as well.

In this verse, God makes it explicitly clear that the reward is coming, that it may or may not be Him, but that it includes His restoration of Jerusalem. In other words this fits the context of Revelation 22 much better, and we all know that John rarely quotes verbatim passages, instead only using key words to pull up a theme (here looking at misqos in particular.

Thus, it is quite clear that Calm looked at the OT impact before understanding the actual verse in question and without fully realizing the true impact his stance would force on him. It is quite clear from what John gives us in the text that there can be nobody but Jesus using these words.

Cal:
How can a verse that you say “it may or may not be Him” overturn Isaiah 40:10 where there is no ambiguity? I don’t think Isaiah 62 is that ambiguous especially given Isaiah 40 but I will give you the benefit of the doubt because it still does not help your case.

You have not harmed the Greek grammar of Revelation 22:12 or the clear reference to Isaiah 40:12 which prove that the “reward” of 22:12 is a person with the Alpha & Omega and that this person is the Messiah of Isaiah 40:10.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Jaltus
I never said it did not include other people, my point was that the object was not always the people, however. dipped: Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20, hand: Luke 22:21 My point was that your argument was in fact pointless. I just happened to be more specific than you in dealing with occurrences. Of course with me signifies someone or something else is indeed with you. I pointed out that one use was with a hand, not a person. I did find a number of non-personal references in the OT. Exodus 33:12 uses an impersonal reference, as do Job 17:16, 28:14, and 29:20. I'd also look at Judg 11:27, I Samuel 20:14, Psalm 38:10, and others. As you can see, you need to do a bit more research.

Cal
With all due respect, Jaltus, you do not appear to understand the Greek grammar of Revelation 22:12.

BDAG says that met emou at Revelation 22:12 is a “genitive of person” and “lit. of close association.” Specifically of Revelation 22:12 they say the Greek verb estin is to be understood.

None of your examples fit the profile they give for the “genitive of person.” For example your example with Matthew 26:23 has the verb embayas or “dipped.” You need estin for a parallel to Revelation 22:12.

None of your examples compare to Revelation 22:12. I have responded to your contextual arguments on another post even though this grammatical argument is more than sufficient.

Your attempts are admirable but your analysis has not harmed my analysis.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

Today @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131743#post131743)
Cal_Minian:
You are disregarding what both UBS and NA27 say on this matter and therefore I cannot merely take your word for this. The differences can be understood merely as Isaiah speaking in the third person about Jehovah coming with the Messiah in Isaiah and in Revelation 22:12 with Jehovah speaking that his reward is with him.

Actually, it is listed as a parallel in NA 27, not a quote. Notice that the passage is not in italics. Since USB is made by the same editorial group, I suggest you try again.

You quoted the two in Greek but have failed to show any significant differences. You have not demonstrated any substantial difference between the two quotes and have not refuted myself, Bruce Metzger of the UBS or Kurt and Barbara Aland from the Nestle-Aland Greek critical aparatus.

Do I really need to spell out the differences?

John says: Idou ercomai tacu kaio misqoV mou met emou apodounai ekastw wV to ergon estin autou.

Isaiah says Idou kurioV meta iscuoV ercetai kai o braciwn meta kurieiaV idou o misqoV autou met autou kai to ergon enantion autou.

Blue = parallel
Orange = slight parallel but change in person
Green = no parallel

Cal:
I agree that the Son of God pre-existed and was used by the Father as him “arm” in a variety of ways. That in no way proves he is the Almighty God.

Regardless of the view as to Jesus’ pre-existence, my use of this verse to identify the “reward” of Isaiah 40:10 as being the reference of the “reward” of Revelation 22:12 is still very much intact.

Not really, but ok.

Cal:
Revelation 22:12 has as it’s reference not the GNT but the LXX. The “reward” in Isaiah, which is also the Messiah, is therefore the proper referent. Also, as I showed in my previous post, the particular grammatical usage of MET’ EMOU cannot be anything other than a reference to someone being “with” someone.

If this is your argument, then it has just fallen apart in a major way. See my above post which shows that this is in fact completely wrong. You used BDAG for your info, which generally does not list LXX usage, something which completely disproves your claim.

In fact every English translation I have looked at so far supply “is” which indicates they agree with what BDAG said about this construction. Do you read a bible that agrees with your view? If so, what translation is it?

I am not sure what you mean here. Some clarification would help me answer.

Cal:
Really? That is not what the Greek says. And it is not what the English says either. Even if it is a “something” instead of a “someone” (which the Greek denies) that thing is being distinguished FROM the speaker!!!

What is your point? If it is being distinguished from the speaker then Jesus is not saying He is the reward, or at least He is not all of the reward, something which does seem to fit Revelation as a whole (you know, the whole "crown of life" idea etc.).

Cal:
You are apparently ignoring that Revelation 22:12 is a reference to Isaiah 40:10 which is Jehovah coming with his Messiah. BTW in the first fulfillment of Isaiah that was Cyrus who was not God. By your logic above Cyrus is God!

False assumption. My point is AGAIN that Jophn is adapting Isaiah, not quoting verbatim, which means he is changing what the verse means. He is alluding to it, not quoting it. There is a huge difference you seem unable to grasp.


Cal:
You continue to ignore the fact that this is a reference to Isaiah 40:10. The “formula” that you mention does not exist in the LXX, does it?

You need to deal with the context before moving to another passage, even if it is a parallel. I recommend rethinking your exegetical technique. You cannot supercede Isaiah's grammatical usage over John's when reading John's work! What you propose is preposterious! That would lead to using a translator's syntax over an author's when reading the author's book in English which quotes a translation of someone else.

In other words, your hermeneutic works like this:

A writes a book. B translates that book into C's language. C writes a book quoting A, but using the translation provided by B.

According to you, if I am reading C's book, I have to worry more about how B uses grammar than how C uses grammar when reading C's book.

That is patently absurd.

Cal:
They are both coming. Isaiah 40:10 proves that. There are also other places but this post is already getting too lengthy.

Not an argument. In Revelation, only Jesus is coming. Stick with the booki in question before going cannonical.

Cal:
My copy of the New King James Version is a red-letter edition. Verses 12 and 13 are red and verse 16 is read. Verses 14-15 are black. Those publishers evidently do not feel the way you do. Therefore why should I accept your opinion on this matter?

Because I have multiple degrees in Greek and actually know how to translate. Try reading the ESV, NIV, or any other Bible not based on the KJV or NKJV manuscripts. You will quickly see that most translations agree with me.


Cal:
You have not properly considered the Greek grammar of MET’ EMOU or the parallel between the “reward” in Isaiah 40:10 being a reference to the “reward” in Revelation 22:12. You also make assumptions as to Jesus speaking all the way from verse 12 to verse 16 which the NKJV does not do.

The NKJV is wrong. There is no grammatical reason why Jesus is not the speaker from 22:12ff. As for the Greek grammar, you are the one ignoring it and sticking only to the parallel. Try reading Revelation to make a case.

Cal:
How can a verse that you say “it may or may not be Him” overturn Isaiah 40:10 where there is no ambiguity? I don’t think Isaiah 62 is that ambiguous especially given Isaiah 40 but I will give you the benefit of the doubt because it still does not help your case.

Not overturning, just showing another parallel.

You have not harmed the Greek grammar of Revelation 22:12 or the clear reference to Isaiah 40:12 which prove that the “reward” of 22:12 is a person with the Alpha &amp; Omega and that this person is the Messiah of Isaiah 40:10.

Kind Regards,
Cal

I believe I have defeated your case as presented so far between this post and my last post detailing how the LXX uses grammar.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131749#post131749)
Cal_Minian:

With all due respect, Jaltus, you do not appear to understand the Greek grammar of Revelation 22:12.

BDAG says that met emou at Revelation 22:12 is a “genitive of person” and “lit. of close association.” Specifically of Revelation 22:12 they say the Greek verb estin is to be understood.

Genetive of person? There is no such thing for a prepositional phrase! I think what you meant was that the preposition takes a genetive of person, something which most grammarians would dispute (the type of genetive is irrelevant since the preposition requires the case). Remember that BDAG is a lexicon, the grammar mentioned within is not always correct, just the definitions are (generally).

None of your examples fit the profile they give for the “genitive of person.” For example your example with Matthew 26:23 has the verb embayas or “dipped.” You need estin for a parallel to Revelation 22:12.

Actually, I do not need estin for a parallel according to BDAG. For that matter, it does not occur in the verse itself, you need to supply it. As for having a parallel, I do, Job 28:14.

None of your examples compare to Revelation 22:12. I have responded to your contextual arguments on another post even though this grammatical argument is more than sufficient.

Your attempts are admirable but your analysis has not harmed my analysis.

Kind Regards,
Cal

You obviously did not read my post, or at least look at the verses I offered. Job 28:14 is clearly the same thing with a thing, not a person, involved, as is Job 29:20.

Try again.

[Cal_Minian]

Jaltus:
Actually, it is listed as a parallel in NA 27, not a quote. Notice that the passage is not in italics. Since USB is made by the same editorial group, I suggest you try again.


Dear Jaltus,
The parallel between Isaiah 40:10 and Revelation 22:12 is found in LOCI CITAATI VEL ALLEGATI. You have disregarded the significance of that reference. In the Introduction it says that if it is not italicized it is an “allusion.” The “reward in Revelation 22:12 is alluding to the reward in Isaiah 40:10. This identifies the “reward” of Revelation 12:12 as the “reward” of Isaiah 40:10. This is sufficient to make my point. It does not need to be a quote and in fact I do not believe I ever said it was a quote. I liked your pretty colors but the allusion stands nonetheless. Therefore ‘’Regardless of the view as to Jesus’ pre-existence, my use of this verse to identify the “reward” of Isaiah 40:10 as being the reference of the “reward” of Revelation 22:12 is still very much intact.’’

Jaltus:
If this is your argument, then it has just fallen apart in a major way. See my above post which shows that this is in fact completely wrong. You used BDAG for your info, which generally does not list LXX usage, something which completely disproves your claim.

Cal:
Do you have a copy of BDAG and have you looked at the Reference to Revelation 22:12. It is a grammatical categorization which proves that what is with the A&W is another person. The LXX has nothing to do with BDAG.

I had said:
In fact every English translation I have looked at so far supply “is” which indicates they agree with what BDAG said about this construction. Do you read a bible that agrees with your view? If so, what translation is it?

To which you replied:
I am not sure what you mean here. Some clarification would help me answer.

Cal:
The fact that English translations supply “is” as in “reward is with him” shows that they are in agreement with what BDAG says about MET EMOU in Revelation 22:12. All of the English bibles therefore refute your position. In addition that means that your supposed parallels to non person items with MET EMOU have no bearing unless they also have the verb ESTIN.

On another subject you said:
False assumption. My point is AGAIN that Jophn is adapting Isaiah, not quoting verbatim, which means he is changing what the verse means. He is alluding to it, not quoting it. There is a huge difference you seem unable to grasp.

Cal:
I see you agree this is an allusion. I agree. And this identifies the “reward” of Revelation as the Messiah of Isaiah 40:12. It also identifies the A&W as Jehovah. These facts distinguish between Jehovah and the reward he is with and proves that at least in Revelation 22:12 Jesus is not the A&W.

In conclusion your counter arguments have no weight.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 02:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131787#post131787)
Jaltus:



Genetive of person? There is no such thing for a prepositional phrase! I think what you meant was that the preposition takes a genetive of person, something which most grammarians would dispute (the type of genetive is irrelevant since the preposition requires the case). Remember that BDAG is a lexicon, the grammar mentioned within is not always correct, just the definitions are (generally).

Dear Jaltus:
It is MET or META followed by a noun or pronoun in the genitive which refers to a person like EMOU in Revelation 22:12.
I did not just take their word for it. I did a search for myself. I did not find any exceptions.

I can understand why you would want to discredit BDAG but if you read Wallaces Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics you will find that he defers to BDAG on matters like this with respect to the preposition.

Thus the BDAG reference remains secure.

Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 02:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131787#post131787)
Jaltus:



ctually, I do not need estin for a parallel according to BDAG. For that matter, it does not occur in the verse itself, you need to supply it. As for having a parallel, I do, Job 28:14.

Jaltus,
Thanks for making my point. Job is poetic in this passage and "The sea" is being personified and speaking!!!!

Wonderful!

And yet we know that the "reward" as the Messiah in Isaiah 40:10, alluded to by John in Revelation is a real person.

And as for Job 29:20, the English versions do not agree with you and render the phrase "in me." It is therefore not an example where ESTIN is supplied or parallel to either Isaiah 40:10 or Revelation 22:12


ASV Job 29:20 My glory is fresh in me, And my bow is
renewed in my hand.



Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

Today @ 05:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131796#post131796)
Cal_Minian:
Dear Jaltus,
The parallel between Isaiah 40:10 and Revelation 22:12 is found in LOCI CITAATI VEL ALLEGATI. You have disregarded the significance of that reference. In the Introduction it says that if it is not italicized it is an “allusion.” The “reward in Revelation 22:12 is alluding to the reward in Isaiah 40:10. This identifies the “reward” of Revelation 12:12 as the “reward” of Isaiah 40:10. This is sufficient to make my point. It does not need to be a quote and in fact I do not believe I ever said it was a quote. I liked your pretty colors but the allusion stands nonetheless. Therefore ‘’Regardless of the view as to Jesus’ pre-existence, my use of this verse to identify the “reward” of Isaiah 40:10 as being the reference of the “reward” of Revelation 22:12 is still very much intact.’’

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but your argument seemed based on a direct quotation, not on allusion. If it is indeed an allusion, I think your argument carries not weight. You now have to argue that the reward is the same in both passages, something I do not think you can contextually carry out. Your argument until this time has been:

Isaiah is alluded to be John, therefore what John says about reward can only refer to what Isaiah says about it. However, that is a faulty conclusion since you have not defended it other than by pointing it out as an allusion. Allusion shows type, not direct correspondance.

[ Cal:
Do you have a copy of BDAG and have you looked at the Reference to Revelation 22:12. It is a grammatical categorization which proves that what is with the A&amp;W is another person. The LXX has nothing to do with BDAG.

Yes, I have a copy (got it for free). The LXX shows usage. BDAG does not always refer to it, but the parallels arew legit since it is also considered to be (early) Koine Greek. Thus, the LXX is very relevant, especially since your argument is based on LXX usage.

Cal:
The fact that English translations supply “is” as in “reward is with him” shows that they are in agreement with what BDAG says about MET EMOU in Revelation 22:12. All of the English bibles therefore refute your position. In addition that means that your supposed parallels to non person items with MET EMOU have no bearing unless they also have the verb ESTIN.

I do not agree. I do not see how the translation disputes my point in the least. If you think ESTIN defeats my point of view, then deal with Job 28:14 and Job 29:20.

Cal:
I see you agree this is an allusion. I agree. And this identifies the “reward” of Revelation as the Messiah of Isaiah 40:12. It also identifies the A&amp;W as Jehovah. These facts distinguish between Jehovah and the reward he is with and proves that at least in Revelation 22:12 Jesus is not the A&amp;W.

In conclusion your counter arguments have no weight.

Kind Regards,
Cal

It is not a fact that the reward is the Messiah. you have yet to establish that other than by saying "allusion."

As for your peicemeal handling of my response, it shows a lack of consistency since you continually say that my counter arguments have no weight even though you deal with only a few of them.

If you cannot answer my arguments, at least be honest enough to say so.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131802#post131802)
Cal_Minian:



Jaltus,
Thanks for making my point. Job is poetic in this passage and &quot;The sea&quot; is being personified and speaking!!!!

Wonderful!

And yet we know that the &quot;reward&quot; as the Messiah in Isaiah 40:10, alluded to by John in Revelation is a real person.


Kind Regards,
Ca;


Not an argument.

12 "But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?
13 "Man does not know its value, Nor is it found in the land of the living.
14 "The deep says, 'It is not in me'; And the sea says, 'It is not with me.'

"It" refers to wisdom. "Wisdom is not with me." Thus, impersonal use. Try again.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131807#post131807)
Jaltus:




Not an argument.

12 &quot;But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?
13 &quot;Man does not know its value, Nor is it found in the land of the living.
14 &quot;The deep says, 'It is not in me'; And the sea says, 'It is not with me.'

&quot;It&quot; refers to wisdom. &quot;Wisdom is not with me.&quot; Thus, impersonal use. Try again.


Dear Jaltus,
It is Poetry. Frequently poetic licence is demonstrated in the book of Job.

Isaiah 40:10 and Revelation 22:12 are not poetic. You have found an exception to the same words used in those two verses and I applaud your industriousness.

However BDAG is still a secure reference for the personhood of the "reward" and in Isaiah there is no doubt the "reward" is the Messiah.

Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131805#post131805)
Jaltus:


As for your peicemeal handling of my response, it shows a lack of consistency since you continually say that my counter arguments have no weight even though you deal with only a few of them.

If you cannot answer my arguments, at least be honest enough to say so.


Sorry,
I did not mean to offend. I was attempting to break it down in small pieces.

If you have BDAG then you know it supports me on this. That is a very good reference.

I have dealt with your examples. I am sorry I did not look at all of them first but when I started at the top of your list it was obvious they were not parallel to Revelation 22:12.

I do not promise to look through a long list of verses that you post if I find they are not leading anywhere. The closest you have is the one in Job and it would be excellent if it was not poetry.

Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131805#post131805)
Jaltus:




It is not a fact that the reward is the Messiah. you have yet to establish that other than by saying &quot;allusion.&quot;



Dear Jaltus,
It seems like you are going to much trouble to disprove that when John alluded to the "reward" in Isaiah 40:10 it does not refer to the same person in Revelation 22:12.

I really don't see why unless you are trying to prove that Jesus is the A&W.

Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131454#post131454)
Tsmith:

They also translate EHYEH as I AM, when we know this is in error. The Last is not a bad translation, but my simple point was the the LXX was accurate in the translation of this verse.

If I recall, though I may be wrong, the JPS OT is not something accepted by Orthodox Jews anyway.

How do we know that the JPS is in error, in translating "ehyeh" as I AM? Because you say so?

"If I recall, though I may be wrong, the JPS OT is not something accepted by Orthodox Jews anyway." LMSHO How many times do I have to ask for documentation? "I seem to reacall", "many scholars", etc., etc. If you are going to refute what I say then quote reliable sources, please.

[dizzle]

With all due respect, Jaltus, you do not appear to understand the Greek grammar of Revelation 22:12.



Like a car wreck on ice, I knew this was coming. Cal, now is an appropriate time to ask you what are your Greek qualifications? I am not suggesting you don't have any, you obviously have more than my none, but what are they? You are aware that Jaltus has almost earned his PhD in Greek aren't you?

[Tsmith]

Yesterday @ 11:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131843#post131843)
OldShepherd:



How do we know that the JPS is in error, in translating &quot;ehyeh&quot; as I AM? Because you say so?

&quot;If I recall, though I may be wrong, the JPS OT is not something accepted by Orthodox Jews anyway.&quot; LMSHO How many times do I have to ask for documentation? &quot;I seem to reacall&quot;, &quot;many scholars&quot;, etc., etc. If you are going to refute what I say then quote reliable sources, please.

Sorry, I'm used to dealing with people a bit more framiliar with the languages.

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible: "The meaning of is obscured by the conventional translation I am who I am., which implies that God is the ground of his own existance. The Hebrew verb denotes, not abstract being, but manifestation in a definite character, or name; and its form indicates habitual manifestation in past, present, or future. Since English requires a tense, the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'"

Rabbi Abba bar Mamel
This is [the meaning] of "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" (literally, I will be what I will be, from Exodus 3:14), I am called according to deeds.

RABBI STEPHEN PEARCE senior rabbi at Congregation Emanu-El in
San Francisco:
"God's answer in Exodus 3:14, "'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' -- 'I will be what I will be' -- sent me to you" is so illusive and ambiguous that this description could not have been very believable.

Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen
Moses perceived that the people would want to know which attribute of God they can expect to encounter; that is, what their experience of God will be, and what is going to happen to them. God's answer, then, leaves things open-ended. Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh is based on the future tense conjugation of the Hebrew verb meaning "to be." Often translated as "I Am Who I Am," the phrase is more accurately translated as "I Will Be That Which I Will Be." The people will come to know God through their unfolding experiences together.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131807#post131807)
Jaltus:




Not an argument.

12 &quot;But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?
13 &quot;Man does not know its value, Nor is it found in the land of the living.
14 &quot;The deep says, 'It is not in me'; And the sea says, 'It is not with me.'

&quot;It&quot; refers to wisdom. &quot;Wisdom is not with me.&quot; Thus, impersonal use. Try again.


Dear Jaltus,
DeeDee just informed me that you almost have a PHD in Greek. Good for you. I am all for improving oneself.

Since you are so far along in your studies then you probably have studied Wallace's Grammar where on page 507 he says of poetry "in Greek .... there is almost always some suspension of normal grammatical rules."

This being the case, can we now both agree that there are no legitimate exceptions to the general rule offered by BDAG?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[dizzle]

So Cal, what are your Greek qualifications? I am not trying to be a wisecracker, but since you are presuming to instruct someone who is almost a PhD in Greek, I am wondering from what foundation you have to do that?

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131852#post131852)
Dee Dee Warren:



Like a car wreck on ice, I knew this was coming. Cal, now is an appropriate time to ask you what are your Greek qualifications? I am not suggesting you don't have any, you obviously have more than my none, but what are they? You are aware that Jaltus has almost earned his PhD in Greek aren't you?

Dear DeeDee,
I asked a sincere question because he was giving examples for MET EMOU as parallels to Revelation 22:12 that did not fit the profile in BDAG with respects to the Greek grammar.

Then he disparages BDAG based on grammar when Daniel Wallace of DTS frequently defers to it for the uses of prepositions.

That being said, he is proving to be a worthy opponent. I am glad you told me his level because I will not feel the need to talk down to him or explain certain things in minute detail.

However, the fact that he does not yet have his PHD does not tell me too much. On Paltalk you said he knew some Greek but that he was not an expert. Someone who almost has a PHD would be considered an expert.

Also, if he has been working on this for 25 years and still does no have his PHD or if he is getting a C average or otherwise impaired in some way your statement would not necessarly make him an expert. (Just a hypothetical, no harm intended.)

As for me, I do not give out personal details about myself on the internet.

You will need to determine how good my Greek and Hebrew is by my posts on this forum.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[GrayPilgrim]

The problem is that אהיה אשר אהיה is one of the most nettlesome philological discussions in the whole of Hebraic studies. I would reccomend looking at the AB, WBC, et al and not the Interpreters as the authros will often give the rationale for translating in the way they do. Listing several Rabi's is not necessarily the greatest or most productive way to discuss this as there are several ways to take this phrase all of which have linguistic and contextual support.

[dizzle]

Today @ 07:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131881#post131881)
Cal_Minian:



Dear DeeDee,
I asked a sincere question because he was giving examples for MET EMOU as parallels to Revelation 22:12 that did not fit the profile in BDAG with respects to the Greek grammar.

Then he disparages BDAG based on grammar when Daniel Wallace of DTS frequently defers to it for the uses of prepositions.

That being said, he is proving to be a worthy opponent. I am glad you told me his level because I will not feel the need to talk down to him or explain certain things in minute detail.

Can I apply your own rule and feel the need to talk down to you until you prove your qualifications? I think you are good at parroting books but have little to no personal qualifications. I do the same, but admit it.


However, the fact that he does not yet have his PHD does not tell me too much. On Paltalk you said he knew some Greek but that he was not an expert. Someone who almost has a PHD would be considered an expert.

UTTERLY AND ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I can only assume you are honestly mistaken. I never mentioned Jaltus to you on PalTalk, and I would never describe him as someone who knows a "little" Greek. I consider him an expert.

Also, if he has been working on this for 25 years and still does no have his PHD or if he is getting a C average or otherwise impaired in some way your statement would not necessarly make him an expert. (Just a hypothetical, no harm intended.)

Because you have no personal qualifications you are now reduced to implyikng that perhaps Jaltus is a poor student?

As for me, I do not give out personal details about myself on the internet.

That is your perogative, but you are presuming to expound upon Greek and will not say your qualifications. I will then exercise my perogative to assume you have little to no formal training. This is a reasonable question that requires no private information. I am not asking you what school you went to, or anything that woudl identify you. I have a right I beleive to ask you by what authority you presume to expound upon Scripture that robs Christ of His rightful place.

You will need to determine how good my Greek and Hebrew is by my posts on this forum.

Since I know neither Greek or Hebrew that wil be tough. I just wanted it out in the open that you apparently do not either, or know enough to sound authorative. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my opinion.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 02:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131768#post131768)
Jaltus:


Not an argument. In Revelation, only Jesus is coming. Stick with the book in question before going cannonical.



Dear Jaltus,

The very beginning of the book shows that the Father is coming.


NRS Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in
Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who
was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who
are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful
witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the
kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from
our sins by his blood,


The one who is to come is being distinguished from Jesus Christ. Thus this one must be the Father. The Father and Son have a joint coming in Revelation just like in Isaiah 40:10 to which John alludes in Revelation 22:12.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131853#post131853)
Tsmith:

Sorry, I'm used to dealing with people a bit more framiliar with the languages.

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible: &quot;The meaning of is obscured by the conventional translation I am who I am., which implies that God is the ground of his own existance. The Hebrew verb denotes, not abstract being, but manifestation in a definite character, or name; and its form indicates habitual manifestation in past, present, or future. Since English requires a tense, the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'&quot;

Rabbi Abba bar Mamel
This is [the meaning] of &quot;Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh&quot; (literally, I will be what I will be, from Exodus 3:14), I am called according to deeds.

RABBI STEPHEN PEARCE senior rabbi at Congregation Emanu-El in
San Francisco:
&quot;God's answer in Exodus 3:14, &quot;'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' -- 'I will be what I will be' -- sent me to you&quot; is so illusive and ambiguous that this description could not have been very believable.

Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen
Moses perceived that the people would want to know which attribute of God they can expect to encounter; that is, what their experience of God will be, and what is going to happen to them. God's answer, then, leaves things open-ended. Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh is based on the future tense conjugation of the Hebrew verb meaning &quot;to be.&quot; Often translated as &quot;I Am Who I Am,&quot; the phrase is more accurately translated as &quot;I Will Be That Which I Will Be.&quot; The people will come to know God through their unfolding experiences together.

"Sorry, I'm used to dealing with people a bit more framiliar with the languages." Hey O2, did you see this? Darn ,where is a good sarcasm watchdog when you need one?

I'm sorry, I thought I made myself clear, I asked for your sources not just vague references to "A buncha scholars say. . . " You will note virtually every time I reference a source I clearly identify, and if possible link to, that source. I almost never say "Everybody knows. . . " to make a point.

And OBTW did you happen to notice that Rabbi Pearce contradicts the other two? Now where is your irrefutable source? I thought I was dealing with somebody who knew what he was talking about

One final point. who are these Rabbis, are they noted Hebrew scholars, or just local Rabbis expounding their understanding, no different than you or I?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131908#post131908)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Jaltus,

The very beginning of the book shows that the Father is coming.

The one who is to come is being distinguished from Jesus Christ. Thus this one must be the Father. The Father and Son have a joint coming in Revelation just like in Isaiah 40:10 to which John alludes in Revelation 22:12.

Kind Regards,
Cal

PMFBI, don't mind me I will just drop in a little church history to aid in the understanding Alpha and Omega in Revelation.
Hippolytus. Treatise XII.1 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

[a.d. 170-236.]The first great Christian Father whose history is Roman is, nevertheless, not a Roman, but a Greek.

“Also in the Gospel according to John, the Lord says: "And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do. And now, do Thou glorify me with Thyself, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was made."122 Also Paul to the Colossians: "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature."123 Also in the same place: "The first-born from the dead, that He might in all things become the holder of the pre-eminence."124 In the Apocalypse too: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto Him that is thirsting from the fountain of the water of life freely."125 That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. "Because the Jews require a sign, and the Creeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm

THE LETTERS OF ST. JEROME Against Jovianus (c. 370 AD)

Whence also the Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says,102 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-03.htm#P75_1065

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John Book I [185 - 254 AD]

For none of these plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him [Jesus] say, "I am the light of the world," "I am the way and the truth and the life," "I am the resurrection, "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd; "and in the Apocalypse, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-37.htm

St Ambrose Exposition of the Christian Faith Book II (c. 380)

35. But hear also such a passage as you can build no doubts upon:50 "Behold, He cometh," saith the Scripture, "with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they which pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn because of Him. Yea, amen. I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty."51 Whom, I ask, did they pierce? For Whose coming hope we but the Son's? Therefore, Christ is Almighty Lord, and God.

36. Hear another passage, your sacred Majesty,-hear the voice of Christ. "Thus saith the Lord Almighty: After His glory52 hath He sent me against the nations which have made spoil of you, forasmuch as he that toucheth you is as he that toucheth the pupil of His eye. For lo, I lay my hand upon them which despoiled you, and I will save you, and they shall be for a spoil, which made spoil of you, and they shall know that the Lord Almighty hath sent Me." Plainly, He Who speaks is the Lord Almighty, and He Who hath sent is the Lord Almighty. By consequence, then, almighty power appertains both to the Father and to the Son; nevertheless, it is One Almighty God, for there is oneness of Majesty.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-24.htm

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book I (a.d. 153-193-217.)

I have instructed you in Christ with simple, true, and natural nourishment,-namely, that which is spiritual: for such is the nourishing substance of milk swelling out from breasts of love. So that the whole matter may be conceived thus: As nurses nourish new-born children on milk, so do I also by the Word, the milk of Christ, instilling into you spiritual nutriment.

Thus, then, the milk which is perfect is perfect nourishment, and brings to that consummation which cannot cease. Wherefore also the same milk and honey were promised in the rest. Rightly, therefore, the Lord again promises milk to the righteous, that the Word may be clearly shown to be both, "the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end; "77 the Word being figuratively represented as milk.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-52.htm

Clement of Alexandria The Stromata, or Miscellanies Book IV.

“And the Son is neither simply one thing as one thing, nor many things as parts, but one thing as all things; whence also He is all things. For He is the circle of all powers rolled and united into one unity. Wherefore the Word is called the Alpha and the Omega, of whom alone the end becomes beginning, and ends again at the original beginning without any break. Wherefore also to believe in Him, and by Him, is to become a unit, being indissolubly united in Him; and to disbelieve is to be separated, disjoined, divided.”

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-63.htm

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria Discourse IV (356-360 AD)

And this John enables us to do, who says in the Apocalypse, `I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and loveth a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-62.htm
Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.

[Jaltus]

Let me respond to a few things.

First, I have a BS in classical Greek (BS since I also majored in physics and math, yes I am a nerd). I also have an M Div in which my electives were essentially all in Greek (one exception I can think of).

I currently am carrying a 3.7 something in my PhD program as the NT department fellow. I have also taught Greek at the seminary level. I am only in my second year of PhD work, seeing that I am not even 30 yet. I have been working in the Greek language for err...let me count....at least 8 years.

In terms of poetry, you made one major mistake, Job is not a poetic book in Greek. It is poetic in Hebrew and defies rules there, but in Greek it is just a translation. Poetic Greek deals with meter, whereas Hebrew deals with parallelism. I think you missed the boat on that one. (and yes, I have done a lot of work in Greek poetry) If you read the entire two paragraphs by Wallace you would have avoided this mistake.

Actually, this makes me think of something, thanks. I think I am going to post a thread on the poetry of the NT and see what it does and how it looks.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 06:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131974#post131974)
Jaltus:

Let me respond to a few things.

First, I have a BS in classical Greek (BS since I also majored in physics and math, yes I am a nerd). I also have an M Div in which my electives were essentially all in Greek (one exception I can think of).

I currently am carrying a 3.7 something in my PhD program as the NT department fellow. I have also taught Greek at the seminary level. I am only in my second year of PhD work, seeing that I am not even 30 yet. I have been working in the Greek language for err...let me count....at least 8 years.

In terms of poetry, you made one major mistake, Job is not a poetic book in Greek. It is poetic in Hebrew and defies rules there, but in Greek it is just a translation. Poetic Greek deals with meter, whereas Hebrew deals with parallelism. I think you missed the boat on that one. (and yes, I have done a lot of work in Greek poetry) If you read the entire two paragraphs by Wallace you would have avoided this mistake.

Actually, this makes me think of something, thanks. I think I am going to post a thread on the poetry of the NT and see what it does and how it looks.


Dear Jaltus,
Of course the Greek was not written as poetry but it is translation Greek of Hebrew poetry. Wallace's quote says that poetry also in other languages causes the rules of grammar to be suspended.

Before you use the translation Greek of the Hebrew poetry of Job as an example of legitimate Greek you would need to do a great deal more than you have done which is merely to list the verse and say - see there is an example that refutes BDAG.

In most serious grammatical work the LXX is frequently excluded because it is translation Greek, but the fact that Job is poetry make it all the more suspect.

Now you have my curiosity pricked as well. I am going to read some passages in Job to see if you are correct that the Hebrew poetry from Job tranlsated into Greek is indeed free of any traces of poetry or Semitisms.

I am glad you are a good student of Greek. That will make you a more interesting person to bounce ideas off of.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

DeeDee,
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, Dear.

If the gap between my knowledge and that of Jaltus is that great it should have been evident by now. Why would he waste time scrambling to refute my arguments if they held no validity?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131934#post131934)
OldShepherd:


Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John Book I [185 - 254 AD]

For none of these plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him [Jesus] say, &quot;I am the light of the world,&quot; &quot;I am the way and the truth and the life,&quot; &quot;I am the resurrection, &quot;I am the door,&quot; &quot;I am the good shepherd; &quot;and in the Apocalypse, &quot;I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.&quot; We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-37.htm




Dear OldShepherd,
Could you post Origen on John 1:1?


Kind Regards,
Cal

[dizzle]

I would laugh if you weren't so serious....




Today @ 10:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131986#post131986)
Cal_Minian:

DeeDee,
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, Dear.

First of all, I am not your dear. Only my husband has the right to call me that. Do you often talk down to women like that?

If the gap between my knowledge and that of Jaltus is that great it should have been evident by now.

And it is, oh you of Secret Qualifications.

Why would he waste time scrambling to refute my arguments if they held no validity?

:rofl:

Oh how you flatter yourself!!! And funny, if he didn't respond, you would say if the gap was so great how come he has no answer. Nice little circle you drew for yourself.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131996#post131996)
Dee Dee Warren:



Dear DeeDee, (better at the beginning of the address than at the end I presume?)

You said:
Oh how you flatter yourself!!! And funny, if he didn't respond, you would say if the gap was so great how come he has no answer. Nice little circle you drew for yourself.

My post on Revelation was in response to you and your article on the A&W. It was not addressed to Jaltus, but I am glad he responded. I have enjoyed it to this point. However I had no idea he was your knight in shining armor. Hopefully for you he has some arrows in his quiver :help:


Best Regards,
Cal

[dizzle]

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132003#post132003)
Cal_Minian:





Dear DeeDee, (better at the beginning of the address than at the end I presume?)



Yes, otherwise it was pretty patronizing, but I have had worse. "Little lady" comes to mind (somewhat of an inside joke).


My post on Revelation was in response to you and your article on the A&amp;W.

And I am going to address those specific points. My admin duties take priority.

It was not addressed to Jaltus....

Posts on open forum are understood to be "open." My article wasn't addressed specifically to you either.



, but I am glad he responded. I have enjoyed it to this point. However I had no idea he was your knight in shining armor. Hopefully for you he has some arrows in his quiver :help:

I hope your polemics are making you feel better because they certainly are not making your arguments any better. And if I have to have a Knight in Shining Armor, I would be honored to have Jaltus fill that role. He is a dear friend.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131992#post131992)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
Could you post Origen on John 1:1?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Irrelevant to this thread. If you have something to say why don't you say it? I know you can't mean this.
Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John Book I

The passage they employ most is that in the Psalms, "My heart hath produced a good Word; "and they imagine the Son of God to be the utterance of the Father deposited, as it were, in syllables, and accordingly they do not allow Him, if we examine them farther, any independent hypostasis, nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having an essence of His own. For no one can understand how that which is said to be "Word" can be a Son. And such an animated Word, not being a separate entity from the Father, and accordingly as it, having no subsistence. is not a Son, or if he is a Son, let them say that God the Word is a separate being and has an essence of His own. We insist, therefore, that as in the case of each of the titles spoken of above we turn from the title to the concept it suggests slid apply it and demonstrate how the Son of God is suitably described by it, the same course must be followed when we find Him called the Word. What caprice it is, in all these cases, not to stand upon the term employed, but to enquire in what sense Christ is to be understood to be the door, and in what way the vine, and why He is the way; but in the one case of His being called the Word, to follow a different course. To add to the authority, therefore, of what we have to say on the question, how the Son of God is the Word, we must begin with those names of which we spoke first as being applied to Him. This, we cannot deny, will seem to some to be superfluous and a digression, but the thoughtful reader will not think it useless to ask as to the concepts for which the titles are used; to observe these matters will clear the way for what is coming. And once we have entered upon the theology concerning the Saviour, as we seek with what diligence we can and find the various things that are taught about Him, we shall necessarily understand more about Him not only in His character as the Word, but in His other characters also.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-37.htm#P6240_974745

[Cal_Minian]

Don't miss my new thread on "the word was a god" in BDAG on this forum.

Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Dear OldShepherd,

This is what came before Origen called Jesus the Alpha and the Omega. Origen considered the Christ to be the arche or beginning of John 1:1 and related that to Wisdom being created in Proverbs.

And THAT is the reason Jesus is the A&W, because he evidently considerd arche to mean the alpha in A&W.

Very interesting, yes?

Kind Regards,
Cal


For Christ is, in a manner, the demiurge, to whom the Father says, "Let there be light," and "Let there be a firmament." But Christ is demiurge as a beginning (arche), inasmuch as He is wisdom. It is in virtue of His being wisdom that He is called arche. For Wisdom says in Solomon:84 "God created me the beginning of His ways, for His works," so that the Word might be in an arche, namely, in wisdom. Considered in relation to the structure of contemplation and thoughts about the whole of things, it is regarded as wisdom; but in relation to that side of the objects of thought, in which reasonable beings apprehend them, it is considered as the Word. And there is no wonder, since, as we have said before, the Saviour is many good things, if He comprises in Himself thoughts of the first order, and of the second, and of the third. This is what John suggested when he said about the Word:85 "That which was made was life in Him." Life then came in the Word. And on the one side the Word is no other than the Christ, the Word, He who was with the Father, by whom all things were made; while, on the other side, the Life is no other than the Son of God, who says:86 "I am the way and the truth and the life." As, then, life came into being in the Word, so the Word in the arche. Consider, however, if we are at liberty to take this meaning of arche for our text: "In the beginning was the Word," so as to obtain the meaning that all things came into being according to wisdom and according to the models of the system which are present in his thoughts. For I consider that as a house or a ship is built and fashioned in accordance with the sketches of the builder or designer, the house or the ship having their beginning (arche) in the sketches and reckonings in his mind, so all things came into being in accordance with the designs of what was to be, clearly laid down by God in wisdom. And we should add that having created, so to speak, ensouled wisdom, He left her to hand over, from the types which were in her, to things existing and to matter, the actual emergence of them, their moulding and their forms. But I consider, if it be permitted to say this, that the beginning (arche) of real existence was the Son of God, saying:89 "I am the beginning and the end, the A and the W, the first and the last."

[Tsmith]

Today @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131918#post131918)
OldShepherd:



&quot;Sorry, I'm used to dealing with people a bit more framiliar with the languages.&quot; Hey O2, did you see this? Darn ,where is a good sarcasm watchdog when you need one?

I'm sorry, I thought I made myself clear, I asked for your sources not just vague references to &quot;A buncha scholars say. . . &quot; You will note virtually every time I reference a source I clearly identify, and if possible link to, that source. I almost never say &quot;Everybody knows. . . &quot; to make a point.

And OBTW did you happen to notice that Rabbi Pearce contradicts the other two? Now where is your irrefutable source? I thought I was dealing with somebody who knew what he was talking about

One final point. who are these Rabbis, are they noted Hebrew scholars, or just local Rabbis expounding their understanding, no different than you or I?

Actually, there was no sarcasm intended. Please do not take offense.

If you want a bit more solid evidence, just look in any ol' bible you want. Pull up Ex 3:12 and find the words "I will be." They are there. Guess the word they are translated from. EHYEH.

-Tony

[Jaltus]

Cal_Minian,

Revelation 1:4 is an interesting verse, but you surely missed the point of my argument if this is your rebuttal.

My argument is that Jesus is the only one who claims with His own mouth to be coming within the book of Revelation.

Even if you are correct (which is doubtful since o ercomenoV should probably not be "who is to come"), it does not alter my argument.

Nor have you dealt with the contextual issues I have raised. You again are determined to rest on the allusion as your exegetical key, when in fact the text needs to be your key. Unless you let the text tell you what it says, how are you ever going to understand it?

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 09:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132343#post132343)
Jaltus:

Cal_Minian,

Revelation 1:4 is an interesting verse, but you surely missed the point of my argument if this is your rebuttal.

My argument is that Jesus is the only one who claims with His own mouth to be coming within the book of Revelation.

Even if you are correct (which is doubtful since o ercomenoV should probably not be &quot;who is to come&quot;), it does not alter my argument.

Nor have you dealt with the contextual issues I have raised. You again are determined to rest on the allusion as your exegetical key, when in fact the text needs to be your key. Unless you let the text tell you what it says, how are you ever going to understand it?


Dear Jaltus,
Do you disagree that the person who is described as hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERXOMENOS is the Father and is being distinguished from Jesus Christ?

Also, your comment on the translation of hO ERXOMENOS interests me. This is a participle in the present tense form. I am accustomed to translating participles with ‘ing’ and infinitives with ‘to.’ Also since this is in the present I would consider the action to be continuous in the present. Therefore the proper translation would be ‘who is coming.’ Is that what you meant when you said it should not be ‘who is to come’?


Regards,
Cal

[Bill Hogue]

Nice Job, Dee Dee. A few points to ponder, though. Although the Scriptures were written in Greek would Jesus have said "Alpha and Omega", or would that have been a loose as they could get translation of Christ saying in Hebrew "I am the Aleph". The Hebrew Aleph is the letter that opens and closes many words...so could he have been saying "I am the opening and closing "? Actually the same thought....but with more depth in the Hebrew.

Secondly, the last book in the Bible is really called the Apocylypse or thr Greek Apocylypses, and doesn't mean the end of time but "unveiling". as in the bride being unveiled at the wedding ceremony by the groom. The Church as Bride of Christ will be unveiled by the Groom when he comes for her, as mentioned in the parable of the foolish and wise wedding attendants. We also have to remember that Revelation was written by St. John when he was on the Island of Patmos as a form of persecution by Trajan. The symbolism in it could mean anything. It was written to the Chuhrches of that time in a way only they could understand...and it is difficult to decipher what is germane to us.

Third, the book "The Last Days According to Jesus" by R.C. Sproul is an excellent book for those who have a preterist view. Sproul says with great credibility that those things mentioned by Christ were fulfilled in the seige and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That event could have been fulfillment of prophecy as well as a microcosm and prophecy for the future.

Pax, Bill

[dizzle]

Okay finally I am going to answer some of the issues raised in this thread though I feel Jaltus has more than ably handled them, especially the language issues for which I have no qualifications. My article heavily dealt with contextual issues, which Jaltus as well hammered in on in, which still prove the point to anyone without a theological presupposition to defend at all costs.

1. Jesus as the “First and Last in Revelation 1:17-18

This is what I had said on this issue:

Now in order to show that it is Christ speaking in our passage under examination, I point out that Christ has already taken the title of “First and Last” in Revelation 1:16. The Unitarian argument then counters that although the
Father is called the “First and Last” in several places in Isaiah, Christ is called the “First and Last” in Revelation for an entirely different reason. This is not true, but rather a poor attempt to explain away the Revelation passages. If one were to just take the Revelation and the Isaiah passages together without
importing Unitarian presuppositions into the text, the Deity of Christ is obvious. Revelation is recognized as being an accumulation of hundreds of allusions to OT texts. There is no indication whatsoever that “First and Last” is being used for two entirely different reasons (and the exalted nature of that
very term would make it impossible in the first place). That is reading one’s preset theology into the text and is blatantly circular.

I agree with the Unitarian foundation that Yahweh is called the First and the Last in Isaiah because He is the Creator and the Completer. He also bears that title to show that there is nothing outside of Him, He is the Totality. The fullness of that term is protological and eschatological. He began all things and will end all things. He is the Creator and the Consummator. This is clearly
a strong title of Deity. It would be very, very misleading to just go and apply that title to Christ, without qualification (and this Unitarian explanation is doing a lot of qualifying), when it is such a clear title of Deity. In fact its use in the exact same phraseology as used of God would be downright inappropriate. Jews were notoriously careful in their writings to use certain characteristics and titles of God exclusively for God to unambiguously differentiate Him from all other reality, including exalted patriarchs and angels or other exalted personages. This is such a title and would have been understood in that manner.

In addition to all of the above, it cannot be said that the reason that this phrase is used is because Christ is elsewhere called Firstborn, since that also simply begs the point in that that Title (Firstborn) indicates His preeminence over everything, and also points to His Deity, and an appeal cannot be made to a “last Adam” comment in an entirely different context, as the “last Adam” there (1 Cor. 15) is juxtaposed with the “first Adam” which would be the natural referent of “first” in the “First and Last,” if the “last” indeed refers to the title of “last Adam.” And in the next sentence Paul equates the phrase “last Adam” with “second man,” showing that “last” means the same in that context as
“second.” Christ did not say that He was the “First and the Second.”

One cannot take a unified (and already established) concept of “First and Last” and then pull in two other concepts that have not been Biblically related to each other in sequential manner, as “First and Last” is intended to be taken. It does complete violence to the text, and especially so in Revelation where it is
obvious that the allusions are almost always directly to the OT firstly, not the NT. And of course, the phrase is an “exact” title from the OT, which would then be the natural referent for all three of its usages in Revelation (chapters 1, 2, and 22 – and in 22 in which the Unitarian argument does argue that it IS
referring to the Father) .

Not only that, but that title had already become an exchange term for God Himself within the first century Jewish context. God uses it of Himself almost polemically. He is not just claiming to be the First and the Last, as if whatever exists between “first” and “last” has nothing to do with Him, but is claiming to be the First and the Last and everything that is between. To use
that exact same phrase to mean something else is to reduce it to nonsense and to disregard the “everything in between” aspect of its meaning and its polemical placements in Isaiah.. Additionally, where that term appears and is repeated in Isaiah is also very, very important as those chapters have been called and recognized by many scholars as the pinnacle of the OT expression of who God is and Judaistic monotheism. It would be blasphemous for a creature to take from those passages (especially those passages!!) a title of Deity and apply it to
Himself. If all that was meant to be expressed was “firstborn” and “last Adam,” there were much less dangerous ways to express it (such as actually saying Firstborn and Last Adam). Isaiah Chapters 40-55 contain the strongest and greatest divine assertions of God’s unique identity as Creator and sovereign of
the universe. You cannot divorce “First and Last” from that “baggage.”

Further, this Unitarian explanation ignores and totally wrests the connection between Revelation 1 and 22. The Unitarian wants us to go through places in the NT to find our referent for “First and Last” which I have already shown to be highly superficial and incorrect methodology. There is no indication in the passage that it is alluding primarily to NT titles, and in fact, the first place
to start looking for the meaning of the phrase is within the same Book itself, and the exact phrase, in a tititular context, is used three times (at a minimum and with one disputed usage in 1:11) in Revelation, and with the third usage the Unitarian is arguing that it is used of the Father!

Now, I would argue that all three times that “First and Last” is used in Revelation, it is clearly used of Christ, but just for the sake of discussion, we will assume for a moment that in Revelation 22:13, it is the Father who is speaking, and He claims to be the “First and the Last.” However, in Revelation 1:17 Christ claims that title for Himself. The connection is obviously meant to
be made to the declaration in Revelation 22:13 (both uses have very near proximities to threats/warnings/promises of “coming quickly”) in which it is given as an unequivocal declaration of Deity and explained by its repetition (in case we were thick – which it appears that we are) of the synonymous terms of “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End.” “First and Last” does not mean anything substantially different from “Alpha and Omega” or “Beginning and End,” it is simply sequentially alphabetically expressing the same thing that was expressed sequentially numerically and sequentially temporally. This is so patently obvious that the burden of proof is upon those who would assert
otherwise. They are synonymous and yet we all agree that Jesus claims the title of “First and Last” for Himself at least once. The enormous burden of proof is on the one who wants to claim two entirely different meanings for the same title within the same Book in similar contexts (and even possibly if the textual
variant in verse 1:11 is correct within 7 verses of each other), especially in light of its importance as a title of Deity in Isaiah, and synonymous pairing in 22:13 with undisputed titles of Deity.

And if one wants to travel to the rest of the NT for the referents for the title, its use for the Deity of Christ comes into clearer focus when the fact that “First and Last” is to be understood protologically and eschatologically is fully explored. Christ, throughout the NT, is given protological preeminence, thus demonstrating Him as the First, and also is given eschatological
preeminence, thus demonstrating Him as the Last, and interestingly claims that title in an eschatological context in Revelation (the Firstborn title that was appealed to in Colossians 2 in the Unitarian explanation is the claim in a protological context). It is beyond belief to posit that the exact same title,
worded in the exact same way, taken from the pinnacle of the expression of Judaistic monotheism, is to be understood in different ways within the same book and possibly within eight verses of each other (if the textual variant is correct).


Read it carefully. It is a lengthy and progressive argument that was never dealt with at all in full. Here is what was said to this issue (notice the points of mine that were ignored)…..

by TSmith
2) Ignoring contextual indicators on a title's meaning (specifically 1:17 as expanded by 1:18).

I dealt thoroughly with the contextual indicators since I had heard this Unitarian explaining away before. This is simply handwaving. When challenged Tsmith further stated…

First, we cannot compare Revelation to Isaiah, as the text is significantly different.

Of course that runs counter to much of what Cal said later on with a different verse in Isaiah. Jaltus more than adequately proved that exact textual identity was not necessary for the comparative allusion along with the further points that Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew NOT Greek, and that the “first and last” is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew. But besides all this, to try and divest the Isaianic reference (desperately) from meaning First and Last totally warps the meaning of what was being said….. Let me restate the point….

God uses it of Himself almost polemically. He is not just claiming to be the First and the Last, as if whatever exists between “first” and “last” has nothing to do with Him, but is claiming to be the First and the Last and everything that is between. To use that exact same phrase to mean something else is to reduce it to nonsense and to disregard the “everything in between” aspect of its meaning and its polemical placements in Isaiah..

So, Tsmith’s point boils down to the fact that Isaiah (in none of the Isaianic references) uses the same Greek word for “last” in the LXX (i.e. “eschaton”) but of course the fact that the same word for first “prwton” is used does not receive his scrutiny, and of course he does not touch the disjunction that I asserted that his proposed interpretation would cause….i.e., let me repeat:

In addition to all of the above, it cannot be said that the reason that this phrase is used is because Christ is elsewhere called Firstborn, since that also simply begs the point in that that Title (Firstborn) indicates His preeminence over everything, and also points to His Deity, and an appeal cannot be made to a
“last Adam” comment in an entirely different context, as the “last Adam” there (1 Cor. 15) is juxtaposed with the “first Adam” which would be the natural referent of “first” in the “First and Last,” if the “last” indeed refers to the title of “last Adam.” And in the next sentence Paul equates the phrase “last Adam” with “second man,” showing that “last” means the same in that context as
“second.” Christ did not say that He was the “First and the Second.”

But here is the more telling point…..

Further, this Unitarian explanation ignores and totally wrests the connection between Revelation 1 and 22. The Unitarian wants us to go through places in the NT to find our referent for “First and Last” which I have already shown to be
highly superficial and incorrect methodology. There is no indication in the passage that it is alluding primarily to NT titles, and in fact, the first place to start looking for the meaning of the phrase is within the same Book itself, and the exact phrase, in a tititular context, is used three times (at a minimum and with one disputed usage in 1:11) in Revelation, and with the third usage the Unitarian is arguing that it is used of the Father!

Now, I would argue that all three times that “First and Last” is used in Revelation, it is clearly used of Christ, but just for the sake of discussion, we will assume for a moment that in Revelation 22:13, it is the Father who is speaking, and He claims to be the “First and the Last.” However, in Revelation 1:17 Christ claims that title for Himself. The connection is obviously meant to
be made to the declaration in Revelation 22:13 (both uses have very near proximities to threats/warnings/promises of “coming quickly”) in which it is given as an unequivocal declaration of Deity and explained by its repetition (in case we were thick – which it appears that we are) of the synonymous terms of “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End.” “First and Last” does not mean anything substantially different from “Alpha and Omega” or “Beginning and End,” it is simply sequentially alphabetically expressing the same thing that was expressed sequentially numerically and sequentially temporally. This is so patently obvious that the burden of proof is upon those who would assert
otherwise. They are synonymous and yet we all agree that Jesus claims the title of “First and Last” for Himself at least once. The enormous burden of proof is on the one who wants to claim two entirely different meanings for the same title within the same Book in similar contexts (and even possibly if the textual
variant in verse 1:11 is correct within 7 verses of each other), especially in light of its importance as a title of Deity in Isaiah, and synonymous pairing in 22:13 with undisputed titles of Deity.

The EXACT phrase IS used in the same Book for an undisputed Title of deity and the Aryan argument would expect us to believe that they mean two totally different things, which considering its meaning in 22:13 would be downright blasphemous. John would not be so careless. As to why he used a different Greek word than the LXX…. Well it matters not since he used the same Greek word as he did to allude to multiple Isaianic passages in 22:13, and may simply be a sign that he didn’t believe the LXX rendering to be adequate to convey the utter supremacy he was assigning to Christ in addition to the fact that the Hebrew communicates this very concept, and the Isaianic contexts demand it.

Tsmith tries to recover by stating…

This is theologically based reasoning. Perhaps we should also assume that because Jesus, God and others are ALL called King of Kings, that everyone who has this title is God. However, we know better than this.

I anticipated this in my response above. It is a unique and unassignable characteristic of Deity, such as would never be assigned to a creature. Tsmith recognizes the importance of this when he argues that Almighty is never applied to anyone other than the Father…. So there are indeed some nondelegable titles. First and Last is one of them.

2. An alleged change in speaker in Revelation 22:13

I dealt with this very fully in my original article, though Tsmith’s argument is slightly different in that he is not arguing that the "angel" has continued speaking through 22:13 but rather that that Father has started speaking. Jaltus has already shown the great damage this does to the context. Throughout Revelation, it is ONLY Jesus who said to be coming. The reference in 1:4 cannot not at all in that context be interpreted to be saying that it is the Father who is coming, but rather is saying the same thing that First and Last, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End is saying... that the past, the now, the future, and everything belongs to and (sorry OV’ers) is inhabited by God.

Jesus is explicitly identified as the speaker in 22:6 and then in 22:20 with 22:20 affirming that it is Jesus who is coming. This is so strong that I find it incredulous that anyone could deny that Jesus is speaking with a straight face. Grammar, especially grammar in a highly figurative book, does not over-ride context, and the context here is so straightforward to be overpowering in his obviousness (and Jaltus has ably handled the grammar issues anyways).

Tsmith said,


Actually, there is good reason within the text to indicate a change in speaker.
That being that other times that this type of grammar appears it is without
dispute a change in speaker. Rev 1:9 is a great example. Clearly the personal
pronoun-proper name construction indicates a change in speaker.


And within his argument this proves nothing except that the angel stopped speaking and someone else did. So? I argued that very point. The angel stopped speaking and Christ started. Only a violent forcing of theological presuppositions upon the text, in light of 22:20, would say otherwise. Tsmith apparently did not understand my argument on that one point.

Now, with the argument that YHWH comes with "His arm" who is Christ, John alludes to the Isaiah passage and makes it clear that it is Christ who is coming and identifies YHWH with Christ very specifically in this allusion. In fact ALL the "coming" passages in the NT do this very thing (save one parabolic reference), for NO ONE is ever said to come in the glory clouds but YHWH Himself in the OT though He never personally leaves heaven, meaning bodily or physically. And His agents are never said to be coming or in the clouds, yet Jesus is. Why? Because he is YHWH.


Now it is quite a jump to then say that the "reward" is Christ, and thus the Rewarder is the Father as that runs totally counter to other NT passages and Revelation itself which speaks of certain rewards, and the NT principle that rewards are given at different degrees according to one's faithful service. This is in addition to the fact that Jesus is NOT physically coming in this passage, and thus cannot be a tangible reward that accompanies the Father.

Now onto the reward issues that Cal raised:

The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. The Greek phrase MET' EMOU (with me) is used of close personal association. Thus Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich on page 636 places this phrase in the category of "close association" like "the disciples with Jesus."

This seems to me to be a rather desperate move... Jesus already had clearly said,

Matthew 16:27 - [I]For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Fahter with His angels, and then He will reward each according to their works.

You cannot run to the OT to develop a concept which has fuller revelation in the NT. The NT very often gave us unique and surprising ways of interpreting the OT. Here Jesus tells us of the same event spoken of in Revelation 22:13, and UNEQUIVOCABLY states that He, not the Father, is coming, He will bear the glory of the Father (who gives His glory to NONE), and He will reward, thus distinguishing Himself from the reward. The isolationist eisigesis offered by Cal simply bears no weight in the context of Revelation 22 nor in the NT context.

[Ani Uriyah]

Here my response to your Alpha and Omega post.

In the Book of Revelation



Deuteronomy 29:6 you have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink–so that you may know that I am YVHH your Elohim.



Why is Moshe (Moses) claiming to be their “YHVH your Elohim”? If you read from verse 1 to verse 6, it is all Moshe speaking, there is no sign of speaker change in the Hebrew. So why is Moshe claiming to be their “YHVH your Elohim”?



Deuteronomy 29:1-6 These are the words of the covenant that YHVH commanded Moshe to make with the Yisraelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant that he had made with them at Horeb. Moshe summoned all Yisrael and said to them: You have seen all that YHVH did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. But to this day YHVH has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear. I have led you forty years in the wilderness. The clothes on your back have not worn out, and the sandals on your feet have not worn out; you have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink–so that you may know that I am YHVH your Elohim.



YHVH told Moshe what to say to the Yisraelites. So why is Moshe saying he is their “YHVH your Elohim”? Did YHVH tell Moshe to tell the Yisraelites that Moshe is “YHVH your Elohim” to the Yisraelites? You see, Moshe is speaking as if he himself is YHVH their Elohim, so what is going on? Let’s look at something first, and then I will give you the answer.



Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which Elohim gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,



Here like in Deuteronomy 29:1 YHVH tells Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach what show to his servants. Also notice The true Elohim gave Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach a revelation, clearly showing Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach is not omniscient. Moshe is repeating or should I say paraphrasing what YHVH told him to say just like Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach is repeating or should I say paraphrasing what YHVH told him to say in the book of Revelation. Now that we got the theme of what is going on in the book of Revelation, let us begin to go through some Passages in it.



Revelation 1:8-9 ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the YHVH Elohim, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. I, John, your brother who share with you in Yehoshua the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of Elohim and the testimony of Yehoshua.



YHVH Elohim said this, it was not Ha’Mashiyach. Notice, in verse 7 John is speaking (or should I say is writing), then in verse 8 YHVH the Father speaks. There is no indication that Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach himself said those words in verse 8, for Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach is not speaking in the verses before, it is John speaking (or should I say writing) in the verse before verse 8, but look, in verse 9 John says “I, John” so are we to understand John said he is that what is said in verse 8? The answer is no, so it is clear John is writing what the Father (YHVH Elohim) said. Keep in mind were not there to see what happened; John was in a vision (or should I say a few visions put together). Also note the explanation below with John 14:8-11.



Revelation 1:10-11 I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, ‘Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’ (NRSV)



Revelation 1:10-11 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What you sees, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (KJV)



As you can see, we have a problem on our hands. One version doesn’t say “I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,” while another does. So we know someone hand itchy fingers. But for the sake of the argument, let’s see what KJV says was actually said. How shall we explain it? Let me show you.



John 14:8-11 Philip said to him, ‘Master, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ Yehoshua said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves.



Here we have Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach speaking as if he himself is the Father, and if verses 8 and 9 was all there would have been written, would we have come to the conclusion that Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach is the Father himself? You see, in verse 10 Rabbi Yehoshua says the words he spoke to them are no his own, but they are the words of the Father. And thus, if KJV is correct over NRSV then we understand that the words Yehoshua spoke to John are not his own, but they are the words of the Father. We see that the Father dwells in Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach. Now remember Deuteronomy 29:1-6 and Revelation 1:1? This is simple, if NRSV is wrong and KJV is right in the wording, then we understand that Yehoshua repeated (or should I say paraphrased) what YHVH the Father told him to say. Also, would YHVH Elohim himself say he has a Elohim (Revelation 3:12)?



Revelation 1:17-18 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.



Revelation 2:8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of the first and the last, who was dead and came to life:



This is clearly Ha’Mashiyach speaking. Rabbi Yehoshua is the first of his kind and the last of his kind. What is Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach first of? He is the first of all creation (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14); He is the first to be raised from the dead with a gloried body (Acts 26:23; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5); He is the first to die for the sins of the world. What is Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach last of? He is last one to die for the sins of the world (there won’t be anyone else dying for the sins of the world); He is the last mediator (there won’t be another mediator for us); He is the last of his class (no one was made like him; he is the only one who is the way he is).



Revelation 22:8-13 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; but he said to me, You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your comrades the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship Elohim! And he said to me, Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy. See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’



Read the above Passage carefully and tell me why is this angel that John fell to worship saying he is coming soon and that he is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last? Was there a change of speaker? If there was a change of speaker it sure is not indicated in this Passage, and we sure were not there to see how many speaker there were (we did not see the vision/s John saw). My answer is the same as above; Deuteronomy 29:1-6, Revelation 1:1, and John 14:8-11.



Revelation 5:1-10 Then I saw in the right hand of the one seated on the throne a scroll written on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals; and I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it. And I began to weep bitterly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Do not weep. See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.’ Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of Elohim sent out into all the earth. He went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne. When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. They sing a new song: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for Elohim saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our Elohim, and they will reign on earth.’



Who is sitting on the throne? It cannot be Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach, for he is the Lamb that takes the scroll from the one sitting on the throne. Also notice by the blood of the Lamb (master Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach) he ransomed for Elohim, and he made us to be a kingdom and priests serving our Elohim (who is the Ha’Mashiyach). The one sitting on the throne is not actually the true Elohim himself, it is a representation of the true Elohim (the true Elohim is omnipresent, and something omnipresent does not have a shape; as soon as omnipresent takes a shape it shows has edges which means that something is no omnipresent anymore), this is a vision that is being given to John, clearly showing the Lamb and the true Elohim are not the same and are two individuals.

[bar Jonah]

One problem, Uriyah. (You're new here, so you haven't seen me point this out several times before.)

The book of Yirmeyahu, chapter 23, gives us the name of the mashiach, and that name is YHWH, our righteousness.

Yeshua/Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach is YHWH.

Only YHWH can forgive sins.
Only YHWH created the world.
Only YHWH may be worshipped.

Yeshua forgives sins.
Yeshua created the world
Yeshua is worshipped by men in His presence.

[bar Jonah]

You sound as if you believe you are Messianic. However, I have worked with messianic Jews, and a true messianic knows and proclaims that Yeshua is YHWH. Yeshua is the Lord, our God. Both the Tanakh and Ha'Brit Hadashah are quite clear on this, especially that latter, which is explicit on this issue, particularly in the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 1.

[Ani Uriyah]

RightIdea, this is not a thread about so fake deity of the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom). You can move your replies to my other thread if you want them responded to, this thread is for Dee Dee on Revelation.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 04:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207044#post207044)
Ani Uriyah:
RightIdea, this is not a thread about so fake deity of the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom). You can move your replies to my other thread if you want them responded to, this thread is for Dee Dee on Revelation.
My comments were hardly off topic.

However, I didn't realize the thread was necessarily strictly for Dee Dee and absolutely no one else. If you can't handle evidence from other people, I understand and will refrain from posting in this thread further. (Of course, since you think my comments were off-topic and since I'm not allowed to post here, I trust you will be honorable and not refute them in my absence either, as that would make you guilty of what you accuse me of.)

Take care, and God bless the Hell out of you. :ri:

[Ani Uriyah]

I responded to your comments in my other thread.

[dizzle]

Ani, my article is located here on this site, and as my article, I have the right to choose how the conversations will include or not include. I do not wish to exclude RightIdea, and I will respond to your post on the thread already in progress for my article.

Unless you protest, I will ask the Area Moderator to merge this thread into that thread. If you protest, you will find me absent from this thread and still responding on that one thread for ease of reference so that all the arguments I demolish can be find in one place.

Oh, and I have other fish to fry first, so you will be waiting a bit. But rest assured, I will eventually respond.

[Ani Uriyah]

Do as you will.

[dizzle]

Okay I will have it taken care of and have the link PMd to you so that you will be able to find it.

[Ani Uriyah]

Okay.

[AVmetro]

Ani Uriyah stated:

Who is sitting on the throne? It cannot be Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach, for he is the Lamb that takes the scroll from the one sitting on the throne. Also notice by the blood of the Lamb (master Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach) he ransomed for Elohim, and he made us to be a kingdom and priests serving our Elohim (who is the Ha’Mashiyach). The one sitting on the throne is not actually the true Elohim himself, it is a representation of the true Elohim (the true Elohim is omnipresent, and something omnipresent does not have a shape; as soon as omnipresent takes a shape it shows has edges which means that something is no omnipresent anymore), this is a vision that is being given to John, clearly showing the Lamb and the true Elohim are not the same and are two individuals.

Actually, an omnipresent being can take a form and yet remain omnipresent. Simply because your visual of Elohim is limited does not mean that His presence is. I don't see why this would be a difficult thing to grasp.

Thanks and God bless--IM

[dizzle]

Since the thread in question is in the newsbank area, I will do the merge when I can. Until then, converse here as all the posts will get moved.

[OldShepherd]

Don't know if this is the right place or not. If not, please feel free to move it to the appropriate thread. Other than stating that the OP is a keeper I want to post some quotes from and links to the ECF, who all state that Jesus does state He is the A and W, Alpha and Omega, in Revelation. I have been unable to find any ECF who refers to the Alpha and Omega, who states any other view.
Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI

Also in the Gospel according to John, the Lord says: "And this is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do. And now, do Thou glorify me with Thyself, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was made." Also Paul to the Colossians: "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature." Also in the same place: "The first-born from the dead, that He might in all things become the holder of the pre-eminence." In the Apocalypse too: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto Him that is thirsting from the fountain of the water of life freely." That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. "Because the Jews require a sign, and the Creeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm

The Letters Of St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I.

18. He raises the objection that when God gave his second blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning, but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses to the human race, so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians teaches that God had purposed in the fulness of time to sum up and renew in Christ Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending." At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of the law which no one could fulfil, flesh was given for food, and divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, for the Apostle says, "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was consecrated after the deluge.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-10.htm

Origen's, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book I

But Luke, though he says at the beginning of Acts, "The former treatise did I make about all that Jesus began to do and to teach," yet leaves to him who lay on Jesus' breast the greatest and completest discourses about Jesus. For none of these plainly declared His Godhead, as John does when he makes Him say, "I am the light of the world," "I am the way and the truth and the life," "I am the resurrection, "I am the door," "I am the good shepherd; "and in the Apocalypse, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-37.htm

St. Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book II.

35. But hear also such a passage as you can build no doubts upon: "Behold, He cometh," saith the Scripture, "with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they which pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn because of Him. Yea, amen. I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty." Whom, I ask, did they pierce? For Whose coming hope we but the Son's? Therefore, Christ is Almighty Lord, and God.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-24.htm

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book I.

Thus, then, the milk which is perfect is perfect nourishment, and brings to that consummation which cannot cease. Wherefore also the same milk and honey were promised in the rest. Rightly, therefore, the Lord again promises milk to the righteous, that the Word may be clearly shown to be both, "the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end;" the Word being figuratively represented as milk.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-52.htm

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse IV

And this John enables us to do, who says in the Apocalypse, `I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they who make broad their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever maketh and loveth a lie. I Jesus have sent My Angel, to testify these things in the Churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star. And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that is athirst, Come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely .' If then `the Offspring of David' be the `Bright and Morning Star,' it is plain that the flesh of the Saviour is called `the Morning Star,' which the Offspring from God preceded; so that the sense of the Psalm is this, `I have begotten Thee from Myself before Thy appearance in the flesh;' for `before the Morning Star' is equivalent to `before the Incarnation of the Word.'

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-62.htm

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor. [Paedagogus.], Book VI

The sensible types of these, then, are the sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," "by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-67.htm

Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor. [Paedagogus.], Book IV

God, then, being not a subject for demonstration, cannot be the object of science. But the Son is wisdom, and knowledge, and truth, and all else that has affinity thereto. He is also susceptible of demonstration and of description. And all the powers of the Spirit, becoming collectively one thing, terminate in the same point-that is, in the Son. But He is incapable of being declared, in respect of the idea of each one of His powers. And the Son is neither simply one thing as one thing, nor many things as parts, but one thing as all things; whence also He is all things. For He is the circle of all powers rolled and united into one unity. Wherefore the Word is called the Alpha and the Omega, of whom alone the end becomes beginning, and ends again at the original beginning without any break.Wherefore also to believe in Him, and by Him, is to become a unit, being indissolubly united in Him; and to disbelieve is to be separated, disjoined, divided.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-63.htm


Cyprian, Three Books of Testimonies, Second book. (ca. 248 AD)

Also Paul to the Colossians: "Who is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature."[4] Also in the same place: "The first-born from the dead, that He might in all things become the holder of the pre-eminence."[5] In the Apocalypse too: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto Him that is thirsting from the fountain of the water of life freely."[6] That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. "Because the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and to the Gentiles foolishness; but to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."[7]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm#P7907_2659601\

[Non-Trinitarian]

Who is the Alpha and the Omega?


I have read Dee Dee's article and this is my response.

The verse most commonly in discussion is Rev 22:13. Here one speaks who says he is coming and that he is the Alpha and Omega (A&O). The issue is who is speaking here. Right off the back we need to use caution in being dogmatic on this point. We see multiple speakers in just this short frame of verses. For instance, in vs 6 the angel is speaking. In verse 7 the angel is speaking for Jesus. In verse 8 John is speaking. The angel again speaks in verses 9-11. We see Jesus speaking in verse 16 but this no more proves he is the speaker in verse 15 than John’s speaking in verse 8 means he was the speaker in verse 7. In verse 17 we see the spirit and the bride speaking. Jesus speaks again in verses 18 and 19 and John speaks again in verse 20. The question is, ‘Who is speaking in verses 12-15?’

That Jesus identifies himself as the speaker in verse 16 suggest a change in speaker from verse 15 but I see no reason to be dogmatic on that point alone. It would be foolish for any of us to dogmatically say that we know who is speaking where. For instance, the KJ and the New American Bible have the same speaker in verse 12 and 13 but not in verse 14 and 15. In contrast, the NIV and the New Living Bible have the same speaker from verse 12-16. Obviously personal opinion and preference are at work here. Is this what we want to base our faith off? With so many clear scriptures on who Jesus is, resorting to this argument, in which bible translators cannot even agree on, is quite shaky.

But the text can give us some clue as to who is speaking. Does the phrase “I am coming” serve as proof it is Jesus who is speaking?

JW’s recognize that both the Father and the Son are spoken of as “coming” in the final judgement so the fact that the A&O is said to be “coming” does not prove it is Christ speaking. For instance, consider Rev 1:4,8. In these verses the “One who is, who was and who is coming” is differentiated from Jesus Christ. Thus, more will be needed in order to prove this is Christ speaking as both God and Jesus are coming. Jesus, as God’s representative is coming but being God’s representative means God is coming too. Thus, the phrase “I am coming” is not that helpful in identifying who the speaker is. The prophetic language in the OT of God ‘coming’ through his representative, Jesus, is still valid in the NT.

The other argument is that the speaker uses the phrase “The first and the Last” (F&L) and Jesus applied this title to himself. It is difficult for me to address Dee Dee’s argument head on because she is arguing against a view that JW’s do not hold. That is, the explanation of the meaning of “The First and Last” as used by Christ by the unitarians she is in discussion with is not our understanding.

We recognize that Jesus applied the title F&L to himself twice and that Jehovah used the same title for himself. However, same titles do not mean equality or the same person. Both Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar were called “King of kings”. Jesus gave himself the title “Light of the World” and yet he gave this same title to his followers. They are not equal with Jesus though they share the same title. Jehovah gave the same title to men (“God”) that He gives to Himself. Other titles shared by God and/or Jesus and humans are “savior”, “Adam”, “son of God”, and “son of man”, along with a few others. None of these titles automatically denote equality of one to the other. Context of the scriptures tells us what these titles mean. So what does the context tell us about Jesus’ use of the title F&L?

In BOTH instances when Jesus applies the title to himself, he includes with it the meaning behind it. And you will note that Jehovah does NOT include this meaning with the title when He applies it to Himself Isaiah and the usage at Rev 22:13 also does not contain this clause. Please note these instances:

“Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead but look! I am living forever and ever.”-Rev 1:17

“These are the things he says, ‘the First and the Last’, who became dead and came to life.”-Rev 2:8

JW’s feel it is significant that in both instances where Jesus’ uses the title F&L, he immediately mentions his death and resurrection. Obviously Jehovah does not include this distinction in His title for the simple fact that God cannot die (see Hab 1:12). Thus, while Jesus uses the same title as God, it is with a qualification of his death and resurrection. The only other time the expression F&L appears in Revelation is at Rev 22:13 but in this instance, the instance in question, the qualification of it referring to his death and resurrection does not appear. Thus, we do not believe the title F&L as used in Rev 1:17 and 2:8 is the same as it is used at Rev 22:13.

Furthermore, while Jesus does use the title F&L, he does not use the title A&O in an undisputed verse. In fact, the main crutch of even saying that the A&O title at Rev 22:13 comes from Jesus’ lips is because of the F&L title, which is not used in the same sense as when Jesus undeniably used it. This connect-the-dots approach of trying to link Jesus to the Alpha and Omega title is far from convincing.

It is argued that Christ is the A&O at 1:8 but this same verse also includes the title of “The One who is, who was and who is coming.”(OHWC) In verse 4 we see this title is separated from Christ. Now to Dee Dee’s credit, she does attempt to explain why this is okay by stating that unitarians already allow different ones to have the same title so even if the title of OHWC in verse 4 is not applied to Jesus, this is not proof that it is not applied to him in verse 8. She thus argues that a double-standard is used between identifying the A&O in Rev 1:4,8 and the F&L in Rev 2:8 and 22:13. But again, this isn’t really the case as we see a noted difference between the usage of the F&L titles. And while she may be right that Rev 1:4,8 does not absolutely prove Jesus is not being referred to in verse 8 as it is possible for two people to have the same title, there is definitely more proof he isn’t the one referred to than there is that he is.

Thus, so far the proof of Jesus being the A&O is by more assertion than fact. The final mention of A&O is found at Rev 21:6. Is this Jesus speaking? The evidence suggests no. Verse 5 says the one speaking is on the throne. However, Rev 5:7,13; 6:16 and 7:10 all depict someone OTHER than Jesus sitting on the throne. Jesus is distinctly shown to not be on the throne in these verses. Now it could be argued that God got up and Jesus say down but such is opinion at best and, to be honest, I have never heard a Trinitarian suggest that. Furthermore, the following verse, vs 7, says “anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” This almost nails the coffin that it isn’t Jesus because he called his faithful followers his “brothers” and we all agree Jesus is not the Father. (see Heb 2:11, Matt 12:50 and 25:40) Christians are “sons”, not by Jesus, but by God. (see Gal 3:26; 4:6). And of course, while this is a small thing as it the red-lettered editions are not gospel, the King James and New Living Translation do not show Jesus as speaking, perhaps because of the reasons I mentioned. Either way, we can see that the argument that Jesus is the A&O in this verse is weak.

Outside of Rev 22:13, the other two times A&O appears the evidence against it being Jesus far outweighs any evidence for it being him. Thus, when we come to the third time it appears, with the odds being that it was not him the other two times, we feel comfortable saying it is not him this time either. The evidence for it being him (the “coming” and the F&L title) is too weak and subjective. The evidence is mostly assertion and in the end, it’s Dee Dee’s opinion versus mine. With hundreds of scriptures clearly showing Jesus is someone other than God, this connect-the-dots approach is nothing I would want to hang my faith on.

I'll be out until next Monday but go ahead and submit a rebuttal if you want. Unless you have some different arguments than what was in your article, I probably won't reply other than to say that now people can see both sides.

I will admit that when I get to Revelation, I am already holding as an a priori that Jesus is not God. But you have the a priori that he is. Thus, to think that either one of us can "prove" Jesus is God or not God on any one or two arguments would be foolish. That is why I won't sit and try to debate one argument. Our faiths, hopefully, are built on many verses and we must consider them all before drawing a conclusion.

[dizzle]

Thanks NonTrin, I know I have run you all over creation on where to post this.... I will be getting to a response, but it will be a little bit. I have numerous other obligations at the moment, but I will respond.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 01:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357240#post357240)
Dee Dee Warren:

Thanks NonTrin, I know I have run you all over creation on where to post this.... I will be getting to a response, but it will be a little bit. I have numerous other obligations at the moment, but I will respond.

That's okay Dee Dee. We're all busy. Also, I have an addendum to AV's request for more information on the relationship of the title "First and last" and the resurrection. I will post it here.

AV,
You are correct. I should have made the connection between Jesus saying he is the F&L and immediately following that with his death and resurrection. My bad. Note the verse again.

“And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.”-Rev
1:17

Again, we believe the ‘First and Last’ is intimately tied into Jesus’ death and resurrection. The “First” denotes that he is the first of many to be raised to immortal life in heaven. As Jesus is described as just 12 verses earlier.

“and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,”” –Rev 1:5

We note also

“and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things”-Col 1:18

Thus, since Jesus follows his claim of being the F&L, BOTH times, with his death and resurrection, it appears the “First” is referring to his being the firstborn from the dead. In fact, as a side note though I won’t make too big
of an issue out of it, the Codex Alexandrinus, of the 5th century, has “Firstborn” rather than “First”. Now Jesus isn’t just the First raised to immortality, he is the first one raised to immortality BY Jehovah. And he will be the “Last” raised to life by Jehovah too. The reason he will be the last one raised to life by God is because God has given Jesus the privilege of raising everyone else. We note this at

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day.”-John 6:40

And of course there are other verses that also show Jesus will be raising us from the dead. Jesus has thus been given the grand blessing of being personally responsible for raising all faithful Christians to life.

Now in claiming his title of “First and Last”, Jesus wasn’t just saying ‘I am the last person to be raised to immortal life by God’. While that is part of the meaning, there is a more deeper meaning and purpose behind his saying
that. The point Jesus is making by saying he is the last to be raised by God is that now JESUS will be the one raising all others. In other words, the title “Last” is meant to help all to understand that Jesus has now been rewarded for his faith in God by finally receiving the privilege of raising all others. Jesus is declaring his victory and reward by letting all know that he is the LAST. In fact, Jesus notes that he was the last to be raised by God by what he says immediately following his mention of the death and resurrection. Note the verse again.

“And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.”

This is very telling to Jesus’ meaning behind the title of “First and Last.” No one else will be raised to immortal life by God. Jesus was the First and he’ll be the Last. Why? Because as Jesus says, “I have the keys of death and Hades.”

In short, Jesus was the “First” born of the dead raised to immortal life by God. Because of Jesus’ victory over Satan and his Father’s reward, Jesus is also the “last” to be raised by God as Jehovah has rewarded Jesus with the privilege of raising all others. The “First and the Last” is not a title to tell us Jesus is God, it’s a victory slogan that highlights Jesus’ accomplishments and NEW responsibility, now that he has the keys to death and hades.

[dizzle]

I completely forgot about this thread.... "hits subscribe" to keep it on my to do list.

[AVmetro]

Hi, NonTrin,

I suppose I didn't catch your response. I only caught it now upon getting a notification that Dee Dee replied to this thread :huh:. As of now I'm stuck typing on the floor (I scrapped the old "desk" it was sitting on and waiting for a new one {we just moved into a new home}). I'll reply here in a day or two. Take care.

-AV

[dizzle]

Okay finally I can address NonTrin's post, and I thank him for his patience in this.


The verse most commonly in discussion is Rev 22:13. Here one speaks who says he is coming and that he is the Alpha and Omega (A&O). Yes that is the ultimate goal in the discussion, though we get there by a well built road.

Who is speaking?



The issue is who is speaking here. Right off the back we need to use caution in being dogmatic on this point. We see multiple speakers in just this short frame of verses. No, the issue is who is being spoken of which can be determined irregardless of who is doing the speaking. My position does not require that Christ be dong the speaking, though I believe it is abundantly apparent He is. More on that in a bit.

For instance, in vs 6 the angel is speaking. In verse 7 the angel is speaking for Jesus. Says who? There simply could have been a change in speaker as happens continously in Revelation. It is certainly possible, but irrelevant. What is relevant is that Jesus is who is being spoken of in verse 7. And what is He being spoken of? As the one coming. The Father is never spoken as the one coming in Revelation.

Here are the reference to a "coming" in Revelation: 1:7; 3:11; 9:12 (two more woes are coming); 10:1 (another mighty angel coming down from heaven); 11:14 (third woe is coming); 13:11 (another beast coming up out of the earth); 16:13 (like frogs coming out of the mouth); 16:15; 18:1 (another angel coming down); 20:1 (an angel coming down); 21:1 (New Jerusalem coming down); 22:7, 22:12; 22:20.

In addition there are multiple references to "come." Here are all the ones that refer definitely to a "coming" of Christ: 2:5;2:16; 2:25; 3:3; 3:20; 2:20.

The only references that even remotely can be said to describe the Father as coming are a repitition of this descriptive: "Who is, and was, and is to come." (1:4; 1:8; 4:8; 11:17). This is patently NOT a reference to the same thing but in the context are a praise to the all-encompasing Omni-ness of God. He fills eternity. It is equivalent to the First and Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Begnning and the End. He is the past, He is the future, and He is all the comes in between. Thus there is not ONE reference in Revelation to God "coming" in the clouds in this sense. It is ALL about Christ. If we search the NT there is only one possible reference at all the Father coming, and it is in a parable. Any OT references such as Isaiah 40:10 is a mammoth exercise in question begging in this context, since that is easily understood as a reference to the deity of Christ. In the book in question, who is coming? Christ. Thus when a person is identified as the one who is coming in the book, it is Christ and the other descriptives in that same breath belong to Him.

Furthermore, it becomes even more patent once when takes the correct eschatological view. It is undisputed that in the OT another could come in someone's place as their representative and at times the text makes it appaear as if the absent person being represented is actually the one speaking. The centurion, his servant, and Christ is a good example (compare Luke 7 and Matthew 8). However, why did the servant speak for the Centurion? Because the Centurion was not actually present at this meeting.... the servant came in his place physically. There was a need for substitute representation. He was the physical substitute in the situation. However, in Revelation this need disappears. It is not speaking of Christ physically coming to the earth. He remains in Heaven. There is then no need for a substitute representative. The Father can represent Himself quite ably from heaven. Furthermore, the servant who came in the Centurion's place could speak as if he were the Centurion but he could only act as if he were in what was within his power - not merely his delegated authority. The Centurion was a trained warrior, the servant may not be. It would not matter if he was given the authority to fight on behalf of the Centurion if he lacked the actual ability to do so. The giving of the power of authority as an agent does not give him skills and abilities that the principal alone possesses. This is an analogy in that Christ not only speaks as God (which unitarians explain away as an agency relationship), He ACTS with the abilities of God. These are nondelegable abilities to a mere man. They require infinite knowledge and ability, and only God can possess that. Jesus is portrayed as the judge of all who knows all. This is not something that a man, no matter how highly exalted may do. A man cannot judge with the infinite wisdom, understanding, and knowledge that God possesses. This is insurmountable.

In verse 8 John is speaking. No, there is no quote from anyone, the book resumes its narrative. This is not an accurate representation. It is also rendered irrelevant by the above, but I could not let that go by.

The angel again speaks in verses 9-11. We see Jesus speaking in verse 16 but this no more proves he is the speaker in verse 15 than John’s speaking in verse 8 means he was the speaker in verse 7. Bad argument in that no one is "speaking" in verse 8. Even though this is irrelevant as what is important is "who" is being spoken of, I have to point out this inaccuracy.

In verse 17 we see the spirit and the bride speaking. Again bad argument. The bride is not literally speaking. The bride is the Churchof all time. Is NonTrin really making the argument that the church of all time is literally speaking in that verse? What is obvious is that Jesus has continued speaking and is figuratively relating what the Spirit and the bride are "saying." On a tangent, does NonTrin really believe that an impersonal force there (the spirit) is literally speaking? Has gravity spoken lately?


Jesus speaks again in verses 18 and 19 and John speaks again in verse 20. The question is, ‘Who is speaking in verses 12-15?’
Who is speakingis not the question. It is irrelevant to the main point (see extensive argument above). I could grant for the sake of argument that the angel isspeaking. There is absolutely NO evidence in this exchange that God the Father has started speaking personally. The Father speaks only potentially once during the entire book (21:6-7), though I would say that is the Trinity as a whole. Nevertheless.... there is zero evidence that the Father is speaking in our verse in question. It is either the angel or Christ. And if it is the angel, he is referring unequivocably to Christ as Christ has unequivocably and repitiviely described as the coming one in Revelation with it even being emphasized in the closing verses. There is no way that NonTrin is comfortable with his explaining away. I understand that he must do it, but the clear testimony to the true glory of Christ is undeniable here in the last chapter.


That Jesus identifies himself as the speaker in verse 16 suggest a change in speaker from verse 15 but I see no reason to be dogmatic on that point alone. It would be foolish for any of us to dogmatically say that we know who is speaking where. For instance, the KJ and the New American Bible have the same speaker in verse 12 and 13 but not in verse 14 and 15. In contrast, the NIV and the New Living Bible have the same speaker from verse 12-16. Obviously personal opinion and preference are at work here. Is this what we want to base our faith off? With so many clear scriptures on who Jesus is, resorting to this argument, in which bible translators cannot even agree on, is quite shaky. Acting as if I "resorted" to this argument is quite shaky. I did not. I acknowledged that my point holds true no matter who is speaking. I do believe it is Christ, but it does not matter.


But the text can give us some clue as to who is speaking. Does the phrase “I am coming” serve as proof it is Jesus who is speaking?

JW’s recognize that both the Father and the Son are spoken of as “coming” in the final judgement so the fact that the A&O is said to be “coming” does not prove it is Christ speaking. For instance, consider Rev 1:4,8. In these verses the “One who is, who was and who is coming” is differentiated from Jesus Christ. Thus, more will be needed in order to prove this is Christ speaking as both God and Jesus are coming. Jesus, as God’s representative is coming but being God’s representative means God is coming too. Thus, the phrase “I am coming” is not that helpful in identifying who the speaker is. The prophetic language in the OT of God ‘coming’ through his representative, Jesus, is still valid in the NT. I have dealt with this above. This is bald hand-waving. Nowhere in Revelation is the Father spoken of as coming in this context. And the closing verses of Revelation are a mouth-shutter:

He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." EVEN SO COME LORD JESUS.

It if were a :snake: it woulda bit you. Jesus is the one coming in Revelation. Thus......

And behold I am coming quickly and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

For all my flamboyancy, I am grieving in my heart that this clear testimony is being trod underfoot to rob Christ. It could not be any more clear. As Solly said, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him.

When was God pierced? It is question begging that God is coming because Jesus represents Him. That is nowhere a theme in Revelation. Christ is coming. Christ is the Alpha and Omega.


I will respond to the second prong of NonTrin's response, but he fleshed it out more in his response to AV so I will respond to that post while also quoting portions of the one I just responded to. Maybe I will be able to do that in the next few days.

[AVmetro]

....and then I forgot about it. :) What does that say for my memory? Sorry _again_ for the wait.

Hello, Non-Trin,

You stated:

...8<...



"And he laid his right hand upon me and said: "Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des."-Rev 1:17

Again, we believe the ‘First and Last’ is intimately tied into Jesus’ death and resurrection. The "First" denotes that he is the first of many to be raised to immortal life in heaven. As Jesus is described as just 12 verses earlier.The assertion you still need to prove is that the title "First and Last" is 'intimately tied into' Jesus' death and resurrection. The two appearing in the same verse does not necessarily mean that the one interprets the other.




Non-Trin stated:

"and from Jesus Christ, "the Faithful Witness," "The firstborn from the dead,"" -Rev 1:5

We note also

"and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things"-Col 1:18

Thus, since Jesus follows his claim of being the F&L, BOTH times, with his death and resurrection, it appears the "First" is referring to his being the firstborn from the dead.This still remains a claim from eisegesis as I'm failing to see the necessesity of it. I think to be consistent, either 'first' and 'last' must both refer to the concept of resurrection (in a consistent manner), or to a single concept. I agree that He is the first to be resurrected to _immortality_ (in the case of anyone). However, He is certainly not the "last" to be so.

Christ was not:

a.) the first to die

b.) the last to die

c.) the last to be resurrected to immortality

So given the concepts of "death", "life", or more generally, "resurrection" we do not have a _consistent_ application.

As we see below, to give an explanation you must add another qualifier. Unlike some in the past, however, you gave a _reason_ for this qualifier (which I commend).



Non-Trin stated:

In fact, as a side note though I won’t make too big of an issue out of it, the Codex Alexandrinus, of the 5th century, has "Firstborn" rather than "First".What verse are you referring to? I checked Metzger's commentary and couldn't find

any such reference (I don't doubt what you say, I just need a ref.)



Non-Trin stated:

Now Jesus isn’t just the First raised to immortality, he is the first one raised to immortality BY Jehovah.I agree. By whom else are the dead raised? From past experience I understand what you're getting at. See below.



Non-Trin stated:

And he will be the "Last" raised to life by Jehovah too. The reason he will be the last one raised to life by God is because God has given Jesus the privilege of raising everyone else. We note this at

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day."-John 6:40

And of course there are other verses that also show Jesus will be raising us from the dead. Jesus has thus been given the grand blessing of being personally responsible for raising all faithful Christians to life.In other words, Jesus is the "first" and the "last" to be raised _solely_ by God whereas all other resurrections to immortality are performed _by means of_ Jesus. I have two points to make concerning this:

1.] This isn't a significant qualifier, IMHO. In your view, it may be _related_ to Christ being "dead and now alive" but I fail to see how this would be a _significant_ statment.

2.] It is not true that Christ was raised by sole means of the Father. For example, see John 2:19*; 10:18. Note the parallel between John 2:19 ("raise it up") and John 6:39 ("raise it up"). This would mean that Christ is _not_ the "first" raised by direct means of the Father nor the "last" to be such. (*Speaking of John 2:19, which argument do you use to counter the Trin understanding? Temple = church or "woman healed by faith"? Thanks.)

Non-Trin stated:

Now in claiming his title of "First and Last", Jesus wasn’t just saying ‘I am the last person to be raised to immortal life by God’. While that is part of the meaning, there is a more deeper meaning and purpose behind his saying that. The point Jesus is making by saying he is the last to be raised by God is that now JESUS will be the one raising all others. In other words, the title "Last" is meant to help all to understand that Jesus has now been rewarded for his faith in God by finally receiving the privilege of raising all others. Jesus is declaring his victory and reward by letting all know that he is the LAST. In fact, Jesus notes that he was the last to be raised by God by what he says immediately following his mention of the death and resurrection. Note the verse again.

"And he laid his right hand upon me and said: "Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des."

This is very telling to Jesus’ meaning behind the title of "First and Last." No one else will be raised to immortal life by God. Jesus was the First and he’ll be the Last. Why? Because as Jesus says, "I have the keys of death and Hades."Wouldn't this mean then that a creation of God can act _independantly_ of God the Father? That he/she would have within themselves an _inate_ power to give eternal life? Secondly, contrary to what you have proposed above, read Romans 8:11 (etc) where it is stated that the _Father_ will raise him/her "..if the Spirit of Christ dwells in you."



Non-Trin stated:

In short, Jesus was the "First" born of the dead raised to immortal life by God. Because of Jesus’ victory over Satan and his Father’s reward, Jesus is also the "last" to be raised by God as Jehovah has rewarded Jesus with the privilege of raising all others. The "First and the Last" is not a title to tell us Jesus is God, it’s a victory slogan that highlights Jesus’ accomplishments and NEW responsibility, now that he has the keys to death and hades.If I haven't stated my view previously, I see this passage as a statement of deity and a subsequent proclamation over death w/o seeing the one interpreting the other. I see no significance or consistency in any other anti-Trinitarian interpretation I've seen thus far. Especially given that the exact same phrase is used in ref. to, granted for now, the Father in Rev 22:13

1:17 - ho prwtos kai ho eschatos

22:13 -ho prwtos kai ho eschatos

IMO, It's an obvious parallel to "Alpha and Omega" and "Beginning and End."

God bless--AV

[dizzle]

Okay continuing on with the second prong of NonTrin's response

Who's On First?

We recognize that Jesus applied the title F&L to himself twice and that Jehovah used the same title for himself. Good start, and in the same book, and made the term a supreme expression of protological and eschatological divinity. That point is being sorely missed. Revelation makes first and last, alpha and omega, and beginning and end synonomous. Once this is not brushed aside, no other points can be made.


However, same titles do not mean equality or the same person. Both Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar were called “King of kings”. Jesus gave himself the title “Light of the World” and yet he gave this same title to his followers. They are not equal with Jesus though they share the same title. I would never argue that same titles automatically equal the same person. I however gave a very extensive argument for the "first and last" phraseology which was not dealt with.


In BOTH instances when Jesus applies the title to himself, he includes with it the meaning behind it. And you will note that Jehovah does NOT include this meaning with the title when He applies it to Himself Isaiah and the usage at Rev 22:13 also does not contain this clause.
Actually Metro did a great job of showing that it is only a reading into the text that modifies First and Last with anything said after that point, by this simple statement:

The two appearing in the same verse does not necessarily mean that the one interprets the other. ..... and I showed above that it is in fact Christ speaking or being refered to at 22:13, so NonTrin is basically making a circular argument - Jesus always modifies his meaning of the expression of pure deity and since it is not modified at 22:13 this is further proof it is not Christ speaking. It is just as easily understand to refer to the Incarnation. He is claiming not ONLY His deity but His humanity, thus solidifying His right and place as the perfect redeemer.



JW’s feel it is significant that in both instances where Jesus’ uses the title F&L, he immediately mentions his death and resurrection. It is significant to show how He is the perfect representative of both God and man.


Thus, while Jesus uses the same title as God, it is with a qualification of his death and resurrection. Don't you then see the connection? I gave extensive argumentation as to why this phrase in this context cannot be used of a mere creature which was not dealt with even in passing. The "qualification" here is a revelation of Who Christ is in absolute glory.


The only other time the expression F&L appears in Revelation is at Rev 22:13 but in this instance, the instance in question, the qualification of it referring to his death and resurrection does not appear. Thus, we do not believe the title F&L as used in Rev 1:17 and 2:8 is the same as it is used at Rev 22:13. This again is circular and does not deal with the history of the phrase and the "coming" issues I presented which show who in fact is referred to in 22:13.


Furthermore, while Jesus does use the title F&L, he does not use the title A&O in an undisputed verse. It is not disputed for any textual basis whatsoever. If the title A&O did not appear there, unitarians would not be arguing whatsover about who was being referred to.... the objection is driven sheerly by doctrinal bias.


In fact, the main crutch of even saying that the A&O title at Rev 22:13 comes from Jesus’ lips is because of the F&L title..... No. Something has been misunderstood or worded the above badly. The "first and last" there could be absent, and it would still be obviously Christ speaking. However, it is significant that at the climax of the book He undeniably appropriates three of the titles of Deity in the sequential symbolism to Himself.

.. which is not used in the same sense as when Jesus undeniably used it. This connect-the-dots approach of trying to link Jesus to the Alpha and Omega title is far from convincing. This is a misrepresenation of the argument. Strawmen are easy to knock down.

It is argued that Christ is the A&O at 1:8 but this same verse also includes the title of “The One who is, who was and who is coming.”(OHWC) In verse 4 we see this title is separated from Christ. First of all I do not base my thrust on 1:8 at all. Second, this again is circular and assuming nonTrinitarianism to prove nonTrinitarianism. But I have no issue if 1:8 is Christ or is the Father. It is not necessary for my points. NonTrin goes on to argue that Jesus is not speaking in 21:6. I do not make this argument so am not going to respond to that portion. I will note however that it is my position that it is the Trinity speaking as a whole there, but it is not necessary for this article.


“And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des.”-Rev
1:17

Again, we believe the ‘First and Last’ is intimately tied into Jesus’ death and resurrection. The “First” denotes that he is the first of many to be raised to immortal life in heaven. As Jesus is described as just 12 verses earlier.

“and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,”” –Rev 1:5

We note also

“and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things”-Col 1:18 Sidenote... being "first in all things" is the perogative of God alone who gives His glory to none (Isaiah 48:11). First in all things INCLUDES WORSHIP.... one cannot be choosy here.

Thus, since Jesus follows his claim of being the F&L, BOTH times, with his death and resurrection, it appears the “First” is referring to his being the firstborn from the dead. This statement cannot be made without dealing with the contextual and historical issues I presented with First and Last in my original article. The phrase is unmodifiable. It would be akin to me saying "I am ALMIGHTY GOD! I am the owner of TheologyWeb." (no purposeful blasphemy is intended - a point is being proven that I would be making an extraordinary claim) The phrase Almighty God just cannot be lessened to mean something else. It is not diminished by my qualifier of owning TheologyWeb. It would simply mean that I delusionally thought I was Almighty God and ALSO owned TheologyWeb (which He does, but you get my point). Jesus made a supreme claim. All He can do is add to it with the qualifiers, historically and contextually IT CANNOT BE DIMINISHED..

NonTrin goes on to prove that Christ is the one who will raise the dead. I do not disagree. However, there are major flaws here. NonTrin makes the claim that Jesus was the first and last (that renders inane the utter majesty of that title) to be raised from the dead by the Father. However:

Christ also raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19)

The Father will also raise the rest of the dead at the end of mortal history (Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14)

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.

...knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you.

Thus, our resurections are just like Christ's (that is the point ultimately of 1 Cor 15 anyways) and BOTH participate (as does the Spirit). Furthermore the granting and the power to give life is that of God alone. Granting that to Christ is a concession to His deity. Do you think any creature can handle ALL authority? (Matthew 28:18)?

The points above render incorrect NonTrin's explanation of the verses. Jesus is NOT the last to be raised by God.

[NonTrinitarian]

Dee Dee speckles her writing with irrelevant comments, apparently to detract from any credibility I may have. For instance, she makes an issue out of me stating that John was "speaking" in verse 8. But here is the verse:

"Well, I John was the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been showing me these things."

Now I ask you, does she really have an argument here? Is John speaking? Obviously. But for future reference, so as to not confuse anyone, I will say John is "narrating." Taking issues with stuff like this is ridiculous and I doubt many would say I was in error for saying John was speaking. My point is that there were changes in speakers, to which Dee Dee even agrees as she says "There simply could have been a change in speaker as happens continously in Revelation. It is certainly possible, but irrelevant."

That comment I was quoting Dee Dee from came after I pointed out that the angel was speaking in verse 6 and then speaking in verse 7 about Jesus. Again trying to show there were different speakers. Amazingly, she even took issue with that comment. Along with the point that the spirit and bride are speaking later on. It matters not that it’s a symbolic vision or what, the point is different things are speaking or being spoken about.

Furthermore, Dee Dee also adds frivolous comments like this one, apparently to make her argument appear stronger. "There is no way that NonTrin is comfortable with his explaining away."

Now we move on to the actual arguments, ignoring the irrelevant comments here on out, and snakes.

A thrust of my argument is that the speakers can and do change often, even in this chapter. Having said that, it is not far-fetched to say that God is speaking in verse 13. Now to go against this argument is really two points: (1)-The speaker says he is coming (2) The speaker uses a title which Jesus used (F&L)

As I pointed out, God is spoken of as "coming", even in the book of Revelation. For instance, several times God is described as "the One who is and who was and who is coming." Dee Dee tries to explain this away by saying that this "coming" doesn’t mean "coming." She sees it as a parallel to the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last and The Beginning and the Ending. But notice the problem with this explanation. The other three titles have TWO designations. Alpha, First and Beginning, along with Omega, Last and Ending. But the title "the One who is and who was and who is coming" doesn’t follow that pattern as it is a three-term designation. I fail to see any significant argument for it being a parallel. Dee Dee goes on to say that the term "and who is coming" doesn’t mean God is coming but that it references the period between the Beginning and the Ending. But mere assertion on her part does not constitute acceptance on my part. The plain truth of the matter is that several times God is called "the One…who is coming", right in the book of Revelation.

Dee Dee next makes an argument about Jesus not coming as God’s representative. She says God would not need a representative in heaven. Actually, God never NEEDS a representative, He simply chose to use them. Including angels, humans and even Jesus. As God’s appointed King, Jesus will come to bring the wrath of God on this world. This argument is also mere assertion. In regards to the inadequecy of a representative, Dee Dee states "The giving of the power of authority as an agent does not give him skills and abilities that the principal alone possesses."

She’s absolutely right. Jesus, nor any other representative of God, does not have the same ability as God. Jesus didn’t even have the ability to heal people. The Gospels show God’s power was there for Jesus to use. So God grants Jesus the authority to and power to destroy the wicked. Of course, we saw how an angel destroyed over 100,000 soldiers in the OT so it wouldn’t be too hard for Jesus, or any angel for that matter, to destroy the wicked race. Again, Dee Dee’s arguments are based on assertion and not scripture.

So we have now demonstrated that God is spoken of as "coming" and Dee Dee’s counter-argument seems badly strained, IMHO.

Dee Dee then states that there is zero evidence that God is speaking in this verse. But this is quite inaccurate. The speaker in this verse uses a title that is used two other times in Revelation and that title was used in reference to God, not Jesus. The title is "Alpha and Omega." As I outlined in my original post (you can read it above as I don’t want to repeat it), that title is only given to the Father. The fact that it is not given to Jesus the other two times strongly suggests that this is not Jesus speaking.

Now the next point is in regards the title "First and Last" (F&L). As I stated in another post, same titles do not equal the same individual. And I am not saying that is the thrust of Dee Dee’s or AV’s argument, but it is the thrust for many other Trinitarians so felt it needed to be mentioned. AV stated, and Dee Dee reiterated that in regards to BOTH of the undisputed passages of Jesus mentioning his resurrection with the title F&L, "the two appearing in the same verse does not necessarily mean that the one interprets the other."

He’s right, it does not necessarily mean one interprets the other. But it doesn’t mean they don’t either. The two times Jesus mentions it in the undisputed passages, the A&O, B&E are not mentioned. And the other two instances where the A&O are mentioned are NOT Jesus. Now we come to a third passage that may or may not be Jesus speaking. Is it Jesus? Well, we already saw that the A&O was not Jesus elsewhere so it is logical it may not be him here either. Furthermore, the two times Jesus said the F&L, he immediately follows it up with his resurrection, something that is not done in the disputed verse.

Now Dee Dee said I didn’t consider her arguments, which I did in reading, but my point is that since Jesus tied his meaning of the term in with the resurrection, her point was mute. She automatically assumes its meaning her way and then says that it is impossible to use it that way with a created being. Now whether or not that is true if debatable, but even if it is, she needs to realize that I don’t see Jesus using it the way she says he is and if Jesus is not using it the way she says, her point is pointless.



An interesting point Dee Dee makes, is this:



"It is not disputed for any textual basis whatsoever. If the title A&O did not appear there, unitarians would not be arguing whatsover about who was being referred to.... the objection is driven sheerly by doctrinal bias."She’s partly right but little does she seem to be aware that she does the same thing. We all do. No one believes Peter really is Satan even though Jesus called him such. When we come to verses that seem to contradict the whole, we look for harmonization. Trinitarians have hundreds of explanations, not readily discernable in the text, to explain away all the verses that make people think Jesus is not God. So when I see hundreds of verses showing Jesus is not God, and then come to Rev 22:13, I look to see what it is saying to me. I notice that 1.) The A&O everywhere else is not Jesus 2.) The F&L in this verse is not surrounded with the same context as the other two times it is used (the resurrection)

It is also interesting how Dee Dee, and nearly all Trinitarians, accuse us of assuming non-trinitarianism to defend non-Trinitarianism. And yet Trinitarians assume the Trinity to defend the Trinity. Otherwise, how else are they going to explain the hundreds of verses that, in first pass, cause nearly everyone to think Jesus is not God. Only by assuming the Trinity can Trinitarians explain away these verses. Something the people in Jesus’ day did not have the luxury of doing.

Dee Dee tries to then dismantle the point that Jesus is the one that will raise everyone else up by quoting Romans, 1 Cor and 2 Cor.. But she misses an important point. First, I reiterate that Jesus WILL be the one to raise everyone else up, not the Father. But how does Jesus do that? It is by the Father giving Jesus the ability to do that. So ultimately it is God raising everyone up. There is no contradiction between Jesus saying he will raise everyone up and Paul saying God will. As Jesus said, his Father gave him that ability. In the same way, I will state that Jesus didn’t heal anyone. But before we go and point to verses where Jesus healed someone, we must understand that it wasn’t his power to do such. It was God’s. Thus, her argument falls flat. As I stated earlier, Jesus’ claiming the title F&L is a victory proclamation of the reward his Father gave him. Now Dee Dee asks whether a creature can handle all authority. But it’s not up to her to answer that question so it’s a moot point. I say yes, specifically if God gives it to someone.

I will reply to AV shortly.

[dizzle]

Is three comments really speckling? I write in my style NonTrin, you need to have a wide berth for different styles if you are going to participate in debate forums. I actually consciously made sure not to use the :ddw: or :whip: or other such smilies which would normally be my habit. Were you speckling your post with frivolous complaints in order to make your case seem stronger or to undermine my credibility by making it seem as if my points would be weakened if speckle-free? In other words, you have done what you have complained about, and the fact is, this is part and parcel of debates. Complaining about something that is really not worthy of such is a debate tactic in itself.

I will of course respond. And you know, knowing me, it will of course probably be a while. I am not to be counted on for promptness. Who knows, maybe it will be even be snake-free, but I cannot promise a badger or two will not appear.

[AVmetro]

Hi, Non-Trin,
Non-Trin stated:

As I pointed out, God is spoken of as "coming", even in the book of Revelation. For instance, several times God is described as "the One who is and who was and who is coming." [.....] The plain truth of the matter is that several times God is called "the One…who is coming", right in the book of Revelation.Given the "who was" and "who is" portions of that phrase, wouldn't it be more likely that "the one to come" refers more to God's eternality than an eschatological "coming" as is the case with Christ?

I'll leave the rest for Dee Dee and await your coming response to me.

God bless you--AV

[FormerFundy]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/articles/AO.gif
Christ – The Alpha and the Omega

by Dee Dee Warren

I have been in discussions over the years with Unitarians from different persuasions over the issue of whether or not Christ is ever given the Divine designation “Alpha and Omega.” I assert unequivocally that He is, and that such is a clear testament to His absolute and unqualified Deity.

Wait a minute--"absolute and unqualified Deity"? Don't you know that Christ's deity has to be qualified in relation to the Father? The Father alone is true deity--Christ at best is deity in an adjectival sense.

[dizzle]

Wait a minute--"absolute and unqualified Deity"? Don't you know that Christ's deity has to be qualified in relation to the Father? The Father alone is true deity--Christ at best is deity in an adjectival sense.

Please do not hijack my thread with your obsession with JP. Take it to where it belongs. Furthermore the article is not written to debate those who don't accept the Bible, nor do not profess faith in Christ. It is written as a debate between unitarians and trinitarians, so please respect the intent of the thread.

[dizzle]

Hi, Non-Trin,
Given the "who was" and "who is" portions of that phrase, wouldn't it be more likely that "the one to come" refers more to God's eternality than an eschatological "coming" as is the case with Christ?

I'll leave the rest for Dee Dee and await your coming response to me.

God bless you--AV

Of course it is AV. it is a "triplet" expressing the majesty of God.

[FormerFundy]

Please do not hijack my thread with your obsession with JP. Take it to where it belongs. Furthermore the article is not written to debate those who don't accept the Bible, nor do not profess faith in Christ. It is written as a debate between unitarians and trinitarians, so please respect the intent of the thread.


Dee Dee,

perhaps we should start another thread then but I think you should be willing to clarify your beliefs on this subject. Your statement that this passage proves the "absolute and unqualified deity" of Christ cannot be reconciled with the view of your sister site that says that Christ's deity is qualified.

[dizzle]

Dee Dee,


perhaps we should start another thread then but I think you should be willing to clarify your beliefs on this subject. Your statement that this passage proves the "absolute and unqualified deity" of Christ cannot be reconciled with the view of your sister site that says that Christ's deity is qualified.
Please respect my wishes and stop hijacking this thread and I have zero interest in another thread so if you start one you will know I have no intention or time.

[FormerFundy]

Please respect my wishes and stop hijacking this thread and I have zero interest in another thread so if you start one you will know I have no intention or time.

So IOW, you do not care if one of your sister sites holds that the deity of Christ is qualified. Okay fine.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi Av,
No. I see no reason to assume anything other than that the Father's judgement is coming. "The One...who is coming" simply means what it says, IMHO.

[dizzle]

Then the rest of the verse which is clearly a triplet is just speaking that his judgement was, and his judgment is, and his judgment is to come. It then isn't speaking at all about a "coming" but the eternality of the His judgment. YOu have not answered the point but rather switched the subject from being His nature to His judgment. That does not solve theproblem.

[NonTrinitarian]

Then the rest of the verse which is clearly a triplet is just speaking that his judgement was, and his judgment is, and his judgment is to come. It then isn't speaking at all about a "coming" but the eternality of the His judgment. YOu have not answered the point but rather switched the subject from being His nature to His judgment. That does not solve theproblem.
There is no problem. Jesus is "coming" to bring judgement on this wicked world. So is the Father.

"“Look! I [Jehovah] am sending my messenger, and he [Jesus] must clear up a way before me [Jehovah]...

2 “But who will be putting up with the day of his [Jesus] coming, and who will be the one standing when he appears? ...
5 “And I [Jehovah] will come near to you people for the judgment, and I will become a speedy witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those swearing falsely, and against those acting fraudulently with the wages of a wage worker, with [the] widow and with [the] fatherless boy, and those turning away the alien resident, while they have not feared me,” Jehovah of armies has said. -Malachi 3:1-5

"And the twenty-four elders who were seated before God upon their thrones fell upon their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath CAME, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”-Rev 11:16-18

The scriptures show multiple times God is coming. Sometimes speaking as if He is directly coming, sometimes speaking as coming through Jesus, His Servant.

"And they have no rest day and night as they say: “Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah God, the Almighty, who was [in the past] and who is [in the present] and who is coming [in the future].”-Rev 4:8

Again, multiple scriptures, both in and out of Revelation speak of God as "coming". Unless you have new and better arguments, I see no reason to keep saying the same thing over and over.

[dizzle]

I will add that to the response I still owe on your last longer post to me.

[AVmetro]

Hello, Non-Trin,

You said,

Non-Trin stated:

Hi Av,
No. I see no reason to assume anything other than that the Father's judgement is coming. "The One...who is coming" simply means what it says, IMHO.I believe it means what it says. I simply believe we disagree as to what that meaning is. As I stated before, this phrase in it's entirety denotes either the eternality of YHWH and/or His immutability. It is not limited to one thing but is speaking of the existence of the Almighty Himself. Compare the 'hO ON' of Ex 3:14 (LXX) with the 'hO ON' ("..which is..") in vs 8, for example.
...the phrases are expressive both of his eternity, he being God from everlasting to everlasting; and of his immutability, he being now what he always was, and will be what he now is, and ever was, without any variableness, or shadow of turning: they are a periphrasis, and an explanation of the word "Jehovah", which includes all tenses, past, present, and to come. So the Jews explain this name in Exo 3:14,

"Says R. Isaac (k), the holy blessed God said to Moses, Say unto them, I am he that was, and I am he that now is, and I am he that is to come, wherefore אהיה is written three times.

And such a periphrasis of God is frequent in their writings (l)
[John Gill (Rev1:4)]

I don't believe the "come" here is equatable with the eschatological "coming" of Christ (in the clouds etc) or the statement of His "coming quickly."

God bless--AV

[NonTrinitarian]

Thanks for the info AV. I think we'll just have to let this one go. I simply see things differently and there are way too many other areas that apply to this subject without beating to death one verse.

[AVmetro]

Hi, Non-Trin,

Thanks for the info AV. I think we'll just have to let this one go. I simply see things differently and there are way too many other areas that apply to this subject without beating to death one verse.
Okay, I understand.

God bless you--AV

[dizzle]

Okay I am back…..

There is no problem. Jesus is "coming" to bring judgement on this wicked world. So is the Father.

The Father is not “coming” in the same sense whatsoever in YOUR view. Jesus is coming physically in Revelation in YOUR view but the Father is not, but rather is only coming in representation through the Son. The fact is that the entire focus of Revelation on this “coming” is in stating that it is Jesus who is coming. In the very passage under dispute the Scripture goes out of its way to make it clear that it is Jesus who is being referred to.

The context is a mounting and threatening judgment “coming.” The disputed passage begins (see my bolded text):

Behold I am coming quickly and My reward is with Me, to give everyone according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.

and then the same portion of Scripture says

He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.”

and what is the response?

Even so come Lord Jesus.

Which of course is the matching bookend to the thesis statement of Revelation stated in the very beginning:

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him.

The passage goes out of its way to make the identification of the speaker of verse 22:12 to Jesus. To travel everywhere but this passage to find the referent is sheer eisgesis and an unwillingness to accept the implications of what the text nearly goes through contortions to prove. If the NT and its writer and ultimate Author were so concerned so as to not ascribe outright deity to Christ, this would be a most misleading passage, as would the ascription of the title of deity “First and Last” to Christ earlier especially in light of the way “First and Last” is made an obvious synomyn to “Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End” in this passage.

Now NonTrin brings in this passage:


"“Look! I [Jehovah] am sending my messenger, and he [Jesus] must clear up a way before me [Jehovah]...

First of all this does not speak of the eschatological judgment coming, but of Christ’s first coming and begs the question that Christ is not inherent in the identity of YHWH. And NonTrin leaves out the part where the Temple is said to Jesus’ Temple. Interesting. Let’s take a look at that tidbit which diffuses the separation in identity:

Behold I send My messenger and he will prepare the way before Me, and the Lord, whom you seek, will come suddenly to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold he is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.

With this in mind this once again shows the question begging in citing the rest of the Malachi passage as NonTrin does…

2 “But who will be putting up with the day of his [Jesus] coming, and who will be the one standing when he appears? ...
5 “And I [Jehovah] will come near to you people for the judgment, and I will become a speedy witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those swearing falsely, and against those acting fraudulently with the wages of a wage worker, with [the] widow and with [the] fatherless boy, and those turning away the alien resident, while they have not feared me,” Jehovah of armies has said. -Malachi 3:1-5[/verse]

This is speaking of the first coming, and is speaking of Christ as inherent in the identity of YHWH, the focus of the Temple.

NonTrin then continues to ignore the immediate context of the disputed passage and goes to other portions of Revelation….


"And the twenty-four elders who were seated before God upon their thrones fell upon their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath CAME, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”-Rev 11:16-18[/verse]

Again begging the question of course that YHWH’s wrath is not inherently Jesus’ wrath, but that is not speaking of the “cloud coming” Person that is repeatedly spoken of throughout Revelation, and explicitly identified in the passage under examination. The passage under consideration says “I am coming quickly” – not “My wrath” nor My representative.


[quote= NonTrinitarian]
The scriptures show multiple times God is coming. Sometimes speaking as if He is directly coming, sometimes speaking as coming through Jesus, His Servant.

Again, only perfectly harmonized in understanding that Jesus is in fact YHWH, and again, the passage in question goes out of its way to identify Christ as the one personally coming, which would be quite blasphemous if the identification were not intended to be made.


"And they have no rest day and night as they say: “Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah God, the Almighty, who was [in the past] and who is [in the present] and who is coming [in the future].”-Rev 4:8

As I and AV have repeated shown this is a statement of God’s eternality. I will repeat my prior statement….

The only references that even remotely can be said to describe the Father as coming are a repitition of this descriptive: "Who is, and was, and is to come." (1:4; 1:8; 4:8; 11:17). This is patently NOT a reference to the same thing but in the context are a praise to the all-encompasing Omni-ness of God. He fills eternity. It is equivalent to the First and Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Begnning and the End. He is the past, He is the future, and He is all the comes in between. [b]Thus there is not ONE reference in Revelation to God "coming" in the clouds in this sense.

Now to NonTrin’s direct response to me…..


Now I ask you, does she really have an argument here? Is John speaking? Obviously. But for future reference, so as to not confuse anyone, I will say John is "narrating." Taking issues with stuff like this is ridiculous and I doubt many would say I was in error for saying John was speaking.
Actually my point was quite legitimate. You used that as a basis for an argument that direct quotes from “speakers” in the text changed frequently. The passage you cited was not a “speaking” passage and thus illegitimate. It would be a great example of the book switching from quotes to narrative, but that was not your point. Rather than berate me for finding an error, you should simply concede it and move on. I did not make the huge deal out of it that you are making in an apparent effort to make it seem like I was straining gnats. We all make errors. And you are correct, I do not deny changes in speakers.
As I pointed out, God is spoken of as "coming", even in the book of Revelation. For instance, several times God is described as "the One who is and who was and who is coming." Dee Dee tries to explain this away by saying that this "coming" doesn’t mean "coming." She sees it as a parallel to the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last and The Beginning and the Ending. But notice the problem with this explanation. The other three titles have TWO designations. Alpha, First and Beginning, along with Omega, Last and Ending. But the title "the One who is and who was and who is coming" doesn’t follow that pattern as it is a three-term designation. I fail to see any significant argument for it being a parallel.
It is a parallel in obvious meaning not in sentence structure. The eternality and all encompassing nature of God is a consistent and repeated theme. It would make no sense in that context to reduce that majestic statement to
“who was [came in judgment in the past], and who is [right now coming in judgment],and who is coming .”
That is the logical consequence of NonTrin’s argument which of course is anticontextual and illogical. At the time of the writing of Revelation he does not believe God was “coming” in judgment in the same way He would be coming in judgment in the future. And the verse is making the past, present, and future equal in that aspect of God.

Now in reviewing commentaries, in all fairness, Trin would find some orthodox commentators who would agree with Him that the “coming” is indeed connected to the statement of Christ’s coming, even in the ones I am going to cite below. I would just as vehemently disagree with them for the contextual reasons stated. However, in reviewing these commentators I find something very interesting which shows the polemic that this statement was against the claims of the false gods of those pagan days:

[quote=Robertson’s Word Pictures] Robertson’s Word Pictures

[b]From him which is[b][i] (apo ho ōn). This use of the articular nominative participle of eimi after apo instead of the ablative is not due to ignorance or a mere slip (lapsus pennae), for in the next line we have the regular idiom with apo tōn hepta pneumatōn. It is evidently on purpose to call attention to the eternity and unchangeableness of God. Used of God in Exo_3:14.

And which was (kai ho ēn). Here again there is a deliberate change from the articular participle to the relative use of ho (used in place of hos to preserve identity of form in the three instances like Ionic relative and since no aorist participle of eimi existed). The oracle in Pausanias X. 12 has it: Zeus ēn, Zeus esti, Zeus essetai (Zeus was, Zeus is, Zeus will be).
Which is to come (ho erchomenos). “The Coming One,” futuristic use of the present participle instead of ho esomenos. See the same idiom in Rev_1:8; Rev_4:8 and (without ho erchomenos) in Rev_11:17; Rev_16:5.

That notation of the nearly indentical claim of Zeus is very interesting and gives a cultural context to God’s claim of superiority above the false gods.

Further:

Dean Plumptre cornpares the inscription over the temple of Isis at Sais in Egypt: “I am all that has come into being, and that which is, and that which shall be, and no man hath lifted my veil.”


Dee Dee next makes an argument about Jesus not coming as God’s representative. She says God would not need a representative in heaven. Actually, God never NEEDS a representative, He simply chose to use them. Including angels, humans and even Jesus. As God’s appointed King, Jesus will come to bring the wrath of God on this world. This argument is also mere assertion. In regards to the inadequecy of a representative, Dee Dee states "The giving of the power of authority as an agent does not give him skills and abilities that the principal alone possesses."
My use of the phrase “need” has misled you so I will reword it. In the ancient context of this principle of representative agency, the representative was needed as the principle was not physically present himself. If Jesus is not going to leave heaven in this event, the purpose of representation is rendered inane. There would be absolutely no purpose to it. When God has earthly representatives, it is exactly for that fact. To be his physical representative on the earth.
She’s absolutely right. Jesus, nor any other representative of God, does not have the same ability as God. Jesus didn’t even have the ability to heal people. The Gospels show God’s power was there for Jesus to use. So God grants Jesus the authority to and power to destroy the wicked. Of course, we saw how an angel destroyed over 100,000 soldiers in the OT so it wouldn’t be too hard for Jesus, or any angel for that matter, to destroy the wicked race. Again, Dee Dee’s arguments are based on assertion and not scripture.
NonTrin has sidestepped the point. What is “given” to Jesus is non-delegable powers, ones that make God, God – the ones that require omni-ness. Ones that require absolute deity to be able to do.

Dee Dee then states that there is zero evidence that God is speaking in this verse. But this is quite inaccurate. The speaker in this verse uses a title that is used two other times in Revelation and that title was used in reference to God, not Jesus. The title is "Alpha and Omega." As I outlined in my original post (you can read it above as I don’t want to repeat it), that title is only given to the Father. The fact that it is not given to Jesus the other two times strongly suggests that this is not Jesus speaking.
But didn’t NonTrin himself make the argument that one cannot argue that titles cannot be given to more than one person and such an argument is weak? Yes he did. And the fact is that “First and Last” is given to Jesus at least two other times in Revelation and in this passage, and thus his own argument cuts against him.




Now the next point is in regards the title "First and Last" (F&L). As I stated in another post, same titles do not equal the same individual. And I am not saying that is the thrust of Dee Dee’s or AV’s argument, but it is the thrust for many other Trinitarians so felt it needed to be mentioned. AV stated, and Dee Dee reiterated that in regards to BOTH of the undisputed passages of Jesus mentioning his resurrection with the title F&L, "the two appearing in the same verse does not necessarily mean that the one interprets the other."

He’s right, it does not necessarily mean one interprets the other. But it doesn’t mean they don’t either. The two times Jesus mentions it in the undisputed passages, the A&O, B&E are not mentioned. And the other two instances where the A&O are mentioned are NOT Jesus. Now we come to a third passage that may or may not be Jesus speaking. Is it Jesus? Well, we already saw that the A&O was not Jesus elsewhere so it is logical it may not be him here either. Furthermore, the two times Jesus said the F&L, he immediately follows it up with his resurrection, something that is not done in the disputed verse.
But is IS followed up by an explicit identification of the One Coming, and therefore the speaker, as Jesus! Thus proving that there is no qualification to the absolute identification of Jesus as the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End.
Now Dee Dee said I didn’t consider her arguments, which I did in reading, but my point is that since Jesus tied his meaning of the term in with the resurrection, her point was mute. She automatically assumes its meaning her way and then says that it is impossible to use it that way with a created being. Now whether or not that is true if debatable, but even if it is, she needs to realize that I don’t see Jesus using it the way she says he is and if Jesus is not using it the way she says, her point is pointless.
The point NonTrin has missed is that in context there was no way to qualify it. It had become an exchange term for God Himself. I repeat my point in the initial article:
One cannot take a unified (and already established) concept of “First and Last” and then pull in two other concepts that have not been Biblically related to each other in sequential manner, as “First and Last” is intended to be taken. It does complete violence to the text, and especially so in Revelation where it is obvious that the allusions are almost always directly to the OT firstly, not the NT. And of course, the phrase is an “exact” title from the OT, which would then be the natural referent for all three of its usages in Revelation (chapters 1, 2, and 22 – and in 22 in which the Unitarian argument does argue that it IS referring to the Father) Revelation 1, at verse 11, is the subject of a textual variant and will not be extensively brought into the discussion for that reason alone].

Not only that, but that title had already become an exchange term for God Himself within the first century Jewish context. God uses it of Himself almost polemically. He is not [I]just claiming to be the First and the Last, as if whatever exists between “first” and “last” has nothing to do with Him, but is claiming to be the First and the Last and everything that is between. To use that exact same phrase to mean something else is to reduce it to nonsense and to disregard the “everything in between” aspect of its meaning and its polemical placements in Isaiah.. Additionally, where that term appears and is repeated in Isaiah is also very, very important as those chapters have been called and recognized by many scholars as the pinnacle of the OT expression of who God is and Judaistic monotheism. It would be blasphemous for a creature to take from those passages (especially those passages!!) a title of Deity and apply it to Himself. If all that was meant to be expressed was “firstborn” and “last Adam,” there were much less dangerous ways to express it (such as actually saying Firstborn and Last Adam). Isaiah Chapters 40-55 contain the strongest and greatest divine assertions of God’s unique identity as Creator and sovereign of the universe. You cannot divorce “First and Last” from that “baggage.”

Indeed one cannot.


Dee Dee tries to then dismantle the point that Jesus is the one that will raise everyone else up by quoting Romans, 1 Cor and 2 Cor.. But she misses an important point. First, I reiterate that Jesus WILL be the one to raise everyone else up, not the Father. But how does Jesus do that? It is by the Father giving Jesus the ability to do that. So ultimately it is God raising everyone up.

That then just defeated his whole explanation of First and Last! For then Christ’s rez in that area is no different from our own. Christ said He would raise Himself which according to NonTrin would have to be a power given by God, which is no different than His raising of us. He has killed his own argument in this concession and literally sold the farm. (resists putting in a cow smiley)

Now Dee Dee asks whether a creature can handle all authority. But it’s not up to her to answer that question so it’s a moot point. I say yes, specifically if God gives it to someone.

It is sheer ontological logic. Some abilities are God’s alone because they are inherent to deity and nondelegable. ALL power is something that a an ALL POWERFUL being can handle. This is beyond argument. It is true by definition.

We are kind of calloused to these statements because we are used to it, but just imagine the utter ridiculousness of a creature stating these:

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father

Imagine a mere creature demanding the exact honor as God and claiming the exact authority as God. Just imagine.

The first century Jews who couldn’t swallow their own pride to give up their cherished traditions, knew exactly what Jesus was claiming. And so should we. Our eternal destinies depend upon it.

[NonTrinitarian]

We’re getting nowhere here, other than going around in circles, so this is my final post on the subject. Dee Dee can have the last word on it. I believe Rev 22:13 is not Jesus speaking for a number of reasons.


The Alpha and Omega in the other two verses is nearly undeniably NOT Jesus
God does say a number of times, even within Revelation that he also is coming. So he has a right to say he is coming in 22:13 too. I don’t accept DD’s explanation of this.
In verse 18, the one speaking identifies himself as the one "bearing witness" to these things. This person, whoever it is, speaks of God as being someone other than himself. That is, he says "God will add" and "God will take away" instead of "I will add" and "I will take away." Now granted, God could speak of himself in such away but the initial impact is that God is someone other than this person. Verse 20 shows that the speaker in verse 18 is Jesus. It takes a preconceived belief in the Trinity to say Jesus is God and still can be spoken of as someone other than God. Unless you already believe in the Trinity, you really have no options but see that someone being spoken of as other than God is someone who is someone other than God.
John’s saying "come Lord Jesus" in verse 20 doesn’t not have to link back to verse 13 as Jesus himself said he was coming in verse 20. So John’s reply was no doubt in response to the sentence right before his, the last person speaking being Jesus.
Jesus’ two undisputed sayings of the "First and the Last" are BOTH followed immediately by his mention of his death and resurrection. Something that does not occur in 22:13. Probably since God cannot die (Hab 1) and yet Jesus said he did die. These titles are not in a vacuum. We have to observe what’s going on around them.
In fact, I believe Trinitarians treat many of their verses as if they were in a vacuum, totally ignoring the whole of scripture. It’s not enough to focus on a few dozen scriptures that may suggest Jesus is God, we have to take into account the hundreds that suggest the opposite, at least to someone who doesn’t start out believing in the Trinity. Consider the book of Revelation as a whole:

Rev 1:1- "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him…" I saw a Trinitarian one time sarcastically mock us as when we say something alone the lines of this verse proving Jesus is not God. Such ones can mock all they want but which is clearer? Rev 22:13 or this verse? One has to ALREADY believe in the trinity to understand this verse as saying anything other than Jesus is not God. From the very first verse of Revelation we begin to see Jesus as not being God. That fact is shown over and over as we will see. And we will see that we don’t get the Trinity from Revelation, we have to already believe in the Trinity to even maintain the argument that Jesus is God.

Rev 1:2- "Who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus gave." A witness of two different persons, God and Jesus. Not "God the Father", just "God".

Rev 1:6- "And he [Jesus] made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father." John said Jesus has a God. Is this mere functional subordination? Is john using a different meaning for the term "God" than what he means in the other instances? I see no reason to think that.

Rev 1:9- "John…came to be in the isle of Patmos for speaking about God and bearing witness to Jesus." Same as Rev 1:6. Jesus and God are distinguished from each other. By what authority do Trinitarians interchange the term "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity" with "God"? There is no justification other than their preconceived belief.

Rev 2:26-27- "And to him that conquers and observes my deeds down to the end I will give authority over all the nations, and he shall shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, the same as I have received from my Father." These Christians would be given authority over all the nations. They will "shepherd the people with an iron rod." Does this great authority make them God? Can a mere creature handle all of this authority? Apparently so as Jesus gives them that authority, just as it was given to him. Note how Trinitarians shrug off the significance of the ‘giving’ of the authority when Jesus says it was given to him. Do they do the same thing when this authority is given to humans? The humans are said to judge the angels too. So apparently they have authority, not just in the earth but also in the heavens. This doesn’t make them God.

Rev 3:2- "Become watchful and strengthen the things remaining that were ready to die, for I have not found your deeds fully performed before my God." Again, Jesus says he has a God. In what sense and why is his God only in a functional sense?

Rev 3:14- "These are the things the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God." Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God. There is no example in the NT of this term meaning "beginner" or "originator." And if "ruler" was meant, most likely Jesus would have used the same word as in Rev 1:5 where Jesus says he’s the "ruler of the king of the earth." If he meant "ruler" in 3:14, he probably would have used the same word he did in 1:5. He didn't. He used two different words because he meant two different things. Thus, Jesus was the "beginning of the creation by God."

Rev 5:9- "You [Jesus] are worthy to take the scroll and open it’s seals…because…with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe…and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God." Again, Jesus is distinguished from God.

Rev 7:10- "And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: "Salvation [we owe] to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." God is on the throne. Jesus is not. Rather than get hung up on a debatable and personal opinion on whether a creature (God’s Son) can be intrinsic in our salvation, look at the obvious and non-debatable fact that Jesus is spoken of as someone other than God.

Rev 7:11- "And they fell upon their faces before the throne and worshipped God." Not worshipping Jesus here. They are worshipping the One on the throne, even though the Lamb is right there. Hmm.

Rev 12:10- "Now have come to pass the salvation and power and kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ." This loud voice in heaven acknowledges a distinction between God and Jesus. There’s God and then there is His anointed one.

Rev 12:17- "And the dragon [waged war with those] who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus." Separation mentioned again.

Rev 14:4- "These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the lamb." Ditto

Rev 14:12- "those who observe the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Ditto. And note that we are to observe the faith of Jesus. IE, we are told to observe (as in imitate) the faith of Jesus. Who did Jesus have faith in? God.

Rev 15:3- "And they are singing the song of Moses the slave of God and the song of the Lamb, saying: "Great and wonderful are your works, our Lord God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternnity." This is interesting because here is singing and praise to God. Note that this is both the "song of Moses" and the "Song of the LAMB". Yes, both Moses and the Lamb worshipped and praised God. Jesus worships his Father both on earth and in heaven.

Rev 19:4- "And… [they] fell down and worshipped God seated upon the throne and said: "Amen! Praise Jah you people." Not falling down in front of Jesus. Not "worshipping" the Lamb, even though he is there. They are worshipping God.

Rev 20:6- "But they will be priests of God and of the Christ." Another separation. And again, we can debate the debatable and opinionated argument that humans could not be priests to the appointed King Jesus, or we can go with the simple fact that Jesus is again distinguished from God. You can only explain this away AFTER you have already accepted the Trinity.

Rev 21:22- "And I did not see a temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, also the lamb [is]." Ditto

Thus, it’s not just the arguments at the top of this post that suggest Jesus is not the one at Rev 22:13, it’s the whole of Revelation, period. Trinitarian arguments are, for the most part, mere assertion such as ‘only God could do this’ or ‘only God could do that’, etc. But even in this very book we see humans given authority over the whole earth and how they will shepherd these nations with an iron rod. Something only God could do? Yes, in the truest sense. But He has obviously passed this authority onto Jesus, who then passes it on to others. Rather than argue from opinion and assertion as to what only God can do, argue from the fact that there is a repeated and straight forward separation of Jesus from God that cannot be tossed out until only AFTER one already believes in the Trinity.

I now turn this thread back over to Dee Dee for her final remarks. I will also post some of this in the Tennis court where Bill and I have been talking.

[AVmetro]

Hi, Non-Trin,

This is your post to Dee Dee so I'll keep my comments short and pick out a few things here and there.

You state:

In verse 18, the one speaking identifies himself as the one "bearing witness" to these things. This person, whoever it is, speaks of God as being someone other than himself. That is, he says "God will add" and "God will take away" instead of "I will add" and "I will take away." Now granted, God could speak of himself in such away but the initial impact is that God is someone other than this person. Verse 20 shows that the speaker in verse 18 is Jesus. It takes a preconceived belief in the Trinity to say Jesus is God and still can be spoken of as someone other than God. Unless you already believe in the Trinity, you really have no options but see that someone being spoken of as other than God is someone who is someone other than God.I believe you are assuming your own view as "normal" and the Trinitarian view as being that which has to "go out on a limb" to be viable. Why can't individual members of the Trinity be spoken of as "God" and why must your interpretation be the "initial impact?" Didn't you emphasize later in your post that we musn't take verse in a vacuum? What is the role of the Father being emphasized in these contexts? What role of the Son is being emphasized in these contexts? For example, why is the Son referred to as "the Lamb" rather than simply "Jesus" or other in these contexts? There are explicit reasons why the Father would be called "God" while the Son be referred to as "the Lamb who was slain" etc in these contexts. Hint; it wasn't put there for the purpose of refuting the Trinity.

Non-Trin stated:

Jesus’ two undisputed sayings of the "First and the Last" are BOTH followed immediately by his mention of his death and resurrection. Something that does not occur in 22:13. Probably since God cannot die (Hab 1) and yet Jesus said he did die. These titles are not in a vacuum. We have to observe what’s going on around them.However, you haven't given us an exegetically sound reason to take your interpretation over what is, IMHO, the "plain meaning" of the text. As to Hab 1, true, _in that context_. He did not add "..nor will I ever die." It wasn't until Christ, the divine Logos, "became flesh" (John 1:14; Heb 2:14) that He "lay [His] life down of His own accord" for "no one can take it from [Him]" (John 10:17-18).

Non-Trin stated:

In fact, I believe Trinitarians treat many of their verses as if they were in a vacuum, totally ignoring the whole of scripture. It’s not enough to focus on a few dozen scriptures that may suggest Jesus is God, we have to take into account the hundreds that suggest the opposite, at least to someone who doesn’t start out believing in the Trinity. Consider the book of Revelation as a whole:I would emphatically state the opposite. I have always percieved Trinitarians as taking the whole over the few.

Non-Trin stated:

I saw a Trinitarian one time sarcastically mock us as when we say something alone the lines of this verse proving Jesus is not God. Such ones can mock all they want but which is clearer? Rev 22:13 or this verse? One has to ALREADY believe in the trinity to understand this verse as saying anything other than Jesus is not God. From the very first verse of Revelation we begin to see Jesus as not being God. That fact is shown over and over as we will see. And we will see that we don’t get the Trinity from Revelation, we have to already believe in the Trinity to even maintain the argument that Jesus is God.As I posted earlier today on a newsgroup:

Would you agree that you're bringing in your presuppositions here? Why does subordination and/or interaction (e.g. "giving") entail that Jesus not BE "God?" What is your biblical substantiation for this?

When God created all things did He not in a sense "give" to Himself, IYO? (In fact, it was all made *for* the Son!) Does this mean that He is not God? So then it is a matter of WHO is giving or being given to. In Trinitarian theology, _no created being_ can give to God. So if the Father (God) gives to the Son (God) then what we simply have is an interaction between members of the Godhead. However, what we do _not_ have is any being outside of the ONE God "giving" TO this God. See the point?

Why must this verse be "clear" in refuting the notion that Christ is God?

Non-Trin stated:

A witness of two different persons, God and Jesus. Not "God the Father", just "God".Yet tell us why this is problematic? We would need a statement that Jesus is *not God* in order for a refutation to be order. Stating a truth concerning the Father (i.e. that the Father {as the context makes clear as to whom this word refers} is God) does not exclude the Son from being "God." This is fallacious reasoning.

Non-Trin stated:

John said Jesus has a God. Is this mere functional subordination? Is john using a different meaning for the term "God" than what he means in the other instances? I see no reason to think that.John also states that Thomas has a God. Does your reasoning apply in this case as it does above?

Non-Trin stated:

Same as Rev 1:6. Jesus and God are distinguished from each other. By what authority do Trinitarians interchange the term "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity" with "God"? There is no justification other than their preconceived belief.Because of other verses and passages which demonstrate the Deity (YHWH) of Christ; verse/passages with or w/o the use of the word "God." In other words, scriptural harmonization.

Non-Trin stated:


These Christians would be given authority over all the nations. They will "shepherd the people with an iron rod." Does this great authority make them God? Can a mere creature handle all of this authority? Apparently so as Jesus gives them that authority, just as it was given to him. Note how Trinitarians shrug off the significance of the ‘giving’ of the authority when Jesus says it was given to him. Do they do the same thing when this authority is given to humans? The humans are said to judge the angels too. So apparently they have authority, not just in the earth but also in the heavens. This doesn’t make them God.We don't "shrug it off" (don't you think you're making a blanket statement here, btw?) The circumstances concerning Christ are different than in the case of man. Christ first "became" a servant (Phil2:6) and "learned" obedience (Heb 5:8). And of course, unlike salvaged mankind, Christ is worthy of _equal_ honor, glory and praise (Jn 5:23; Rev 5:13).

Non-Trin stated:


Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God. There is no example in the NT of this term meaning "beginner" or "originator." And if "ruler" was meant, most likely Jesus would have used the same word as in Rev 1:5 where Jesus says he’s the "ruler of the king of the earth." If he meant "ruler" in 3:14, he probably would have used the same word he did in 1:5. He didn't. He used two different words because he meant two different things. Thus, Jesus was the "beginning of the creation by God."I don't feel like typing too much right now (out of vol. I), so I'll merely provide the ref. in Louw/Nida (vol. II): a beginning (aspect) 68.1; b beginning (time) 67.65; c first cause 89.16; d sphere of authority 37.55; e ruler 37.56; f supernatural power 12.44; g elementary aspect 58.20; h corner 79.106

If you haven't read it, I would refer to James Stewart's article on this topic (found at forananswer.org). In it, he makes the interesting note that this passage was never used in the 4th cent. Arian contraversy.

Non-Trin stated:

God is on the throne. Jesus is not. ...8<...Rev 22:3 using the singular "throne" rather than "thrones."

Non-Trin stated:

Not worshipping Jesus here. They are worshipping the One on the throne, even though the Lamb is right there. Hmm.Now compare the doxology in vs 12 with that given in Rev 5:13 where Christ is the focus of (equal) praise. Secondly, stating a positive does not prove a negative.

Also, are you implying that if I can find a verse where 'proskuneo' (as in the above) is applied to Christ by heavenly beings (e.g. Heb1:6), this will overturn your point?

Non-Trin stated:

Ditto. And note that we are to observe the faith of Jesus. IE, we are told to observe (as in imitate) the faith of Jesus. Who did Jesus have faith in? God.The faith of Jesus (te¯n pistin Ie¯sou). "The faith in Jesus" (objective genitive) as in Rev_2:13; Mar_11:22; Jam_2:1. [A.T. Robertson (Rev14:12)]

Non-Trin stated:

This is interesting because here is singing and praise to God. Note that this is both the "song of Moses" and the "Song of the LAMB". Yes, both Moses and the Lamb worshipped and praised God. Jesus worships his Father both on earth and in heaven.Cf. Rev 5:9-10, Rev 5:12-13.

Non-Trin stated:

Not falling down in front of Jesus. Not "worshipping" the Lamb, even though he is there. They are worshipping God.Again, it is fallacious reasoning to make a conclusion from what is basically an argument from silence. As we see elsewhere, Christ _is_ given this precise form of praise. Even as a dual object of adoration WITH the Father.

Non-Trin stated:

Another separation. And again, we can debate the debatable and opinionated argument that humans could not be priests to the appointed King Jesus, or we can go with the simple fact that Jesus is again distinguished from God. You can only explain this away AFTER you have already accepted the Trinity.Rather, a variation of applied terms. What a priest does is not debatable. What this entails of Christ is not debatable either. Christ being an "appointed King" does not negate the fact that for Him to be served by priests is tantamount to idolatry if He is merely a 'creature.'

Non-Trin stated:

Thus, it’s not just the arguments at the top of this post that suggest Jesus is not the one at Rev 22:13, it’s the whole of Revelation, period. Trinitarian arguments are, for the most part, mere assertion such as ‘only God could do this’ or ‘only God could do that’, etc. But even in this very book we see humans given authority over the whole earth and how they will shepherd these nations with an iron rod. Something only God could do? Yes, in the truest sense. But He has obviously passed this authority onto Jesus, who then passes it on to others. Rather than argue from opinion and assertion as to what only God can do, argue from the fact that there is a repeated and straight forward separation of Jesus from God that cannot be tossed out until only AFTER one already believes in the Trinity.It's more like "Only God could have created heaven and earth" rather than something merely as simple as

delegated authority.

God bless--AV

[dizzle]

Thank you AV for your post because I am only intending on primarily dealing with the texts that were the focus of this thread. I believe, and I will show that I have defeated the contra arguments against my point, and without undue disrespect to NonTrin (I mean none) that latest barrage of anti-Trin arguments seemed to me to be a deflection from the defeat of the points. It would take a thread in themselves to adequately deal with each one or several at a time. I will not hold him to his statement that he will post no more in this thread.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi AV,

I see a number of problems with your response but rather than deal with them here, I will start a new thread in Christology. The thread will not be on any particular verse but on the fundamental issues of our presuppositions and common understanding. This is the fundamental problem between us, as noted in the following sentence:

"Jesus walks up before God and takes something out of God's hand."

To me this is a blatant identifier that Jesus is someone separate from God. In other words, I read it as this:

"The individual Jesus walks up before the individual God and..."

You interpret the sentence as this, I believe. If not, I apologize

"God the Son, one person of GOD (as in the complete Triune God) walks up before God the Father, one person of GOD and..."

Thus, I see no reason to discuss any other scripture until we at least discuss this area. Not that we will ever settle it between us but we'll just go around in circles until we discuss it. Give me a day or two, please.

Dee Dee, you still have the last word. I wasn't dodging the discussion, I was just trying to show that we can't look at Rev 22:13 in a vacuum. If there are many other verses that 'show' (understanding that is debatable) Jesus is not God in Revelation, that has to weigh in on Rev 22:13.

[AVmetro]

Non-Trin stated:

Hi AV,

I see a number of problems with your response but rather than deal with them here, I will start a new thread in Christology. The thread will not be on any particular verse but on the fundamental issues of our presuppositions and common understanding.

Okay. But like Ron Macy's thread on "foundations" it may/will be some time till I am able to get involved in a discussion of that depth if an extensive amount of depth it requires.

Non-Trin stated:

This is the fundamental problem between us, as noted in the following sentence:

"Jesus walks up before God and takes something out of God's hand."

To me this is a blatant identifier that Jesus is someone separate from God. In other words, I read it as this:

"The individual Jesus walks up before the individual God and..."

You interpret the sentence as this, I believe. If not, I apologize

"God the Son, one person of GOD (as in the complete Triune God) walks up before God the Father, one person of GOD and..."
I would say that is accurate.

Non-Trin stated:

Thus, I see no reason to discuss any other scripture until we at least discuss this area. Not that we will ever settle it between us but we'll just go around in circles until we discuss it. Give me a day or two, please.
I think the ability to "settle it" is a high possibility. I, for example, would change my position if I honestly felt the bible put forth what the anti-Trinitarian asserts that it does (and you, I'm certain, vice versa).

God bless--AV

[NonTrinitarian]

Okay. But like Ron Macy's thread on "foundations" it may/will be some time till I am able to get involved in a discussion of that depth if an extensive amount of depth it requires.
Not a problem. We're not on a time schedule


I think the ability to "settle it" is a high possibility. I, for example, would change my position if I honestly felt the bible put forth what the anti-Trinitarian asserts that it does (and you, I'm certain, vice versa).
I'm sure all of us feel that way, hopefully. Yet change seldom occurs. I already changed once. I became a JW trying to prove to them the Trinity. I have double goals. 1.) To reach people with what I believe is the truth and 2.) if can't do number 1, at least help people understand my position and I understand theirs. Mutual respect and understanding can go along way.

Take care and I'll post in a few days.

God bless--AV[/QUOTE]

[Saintopher]

Revelation 22:12
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”


A very interesting addition to this particular verse is that in Hebrews it says that "it is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment." I too am more of the preterist persuasion, so I see this "coming to reward" as the judgment that happens immdiately after one dies and is in the presence of the Lord. It isn't necessarily a future event as much as much as a very present reality.

I think that the deeper thing to be looked at in this study is not so much the title given to Christ, as much as how that title fits into the bigger picture. The fact that he is called the "First and the Last/Alpha and Omega" seems to indicate that yes, he is the sum of all things, but yet before "time" began, how was he brought forth by a "Father" without having a mother?

Christ certainly was a very real essense in the O.T. Every manifestation of God in the O.T., since God is a spirit, had to be manifested through Christ in the forms of clouds, rocks, pillar of fire, burning bush, the hand that wrote on the wall...etc. And it was also through Christ that all things were created.

I am not technically a Unitarian, or a Modalist, but I am also not really sure that I am a Trinitarian either. In Genesis, God said "Let Us make man in our image." That "Us" is elohim which is the plural form which says "those from above." In Isaiah, when it speaks about the Christ child, it says that his name will be "El" which is the singual form of "from above." So Christ would be a singual manifestation of HIM who is above.

John 1 says that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God." It is very important to look at the tense of the Greek. It says "in the beginning was the logos (essense or form) and the logos was with God, and the logos had been in God." So this is the essence, or nature of God that had come forth from God and then been made skin.

While it is often said that Christs claim to the Pharisees was that "before Abraham was, I AM" means that he is saying that he was in fact God, I think that the context begs the question "was that really what his intent?" Here he is found rebuking the Pharisees for having a form of religion that is pretty much based on their lineage back to Abraham. Their whole system of faith was based in a geneological relationship to a man. In a sense, they seemed to look to Abraham as their god, and Christ was trying to re-iterate to them that even Abraham looked to God, which is what they were not doing. So in other words, he was telling them "Get over Abraham, and get back to God." :attn:

So anyways, getting back to the First and the Last. This is a term that is probably both relevant to time, as well as position. The phrase in regard to position certainly does declare his supremecy to all other creation, as even God himself said and as well as Paul. Christ was the cheif instrument by which God framed all things. Now in regard to time, He is the First and the Last, yet the Father is Eternal. The New Testament teaches that Christ was begotten by the Father. The word begotten (Greek- monogenes) means only one of its kind. Christ was the only one of his kind that God brought forth for his eternal purposes. This is right in line with the Oneness of God. Because of his Oneness, then God cannot send forth anything other than what is unique to His kind, which is Christ who is One with him. But back to Time. From God's standpoint, there is no time. This might seem like a very philosophical argument, but Scripturally it is very much in line with what Paul reveals. As far as God is concerned, time is a non issue. Time is only the antagonist, or womb by which Christ is conceived and grown in man. Romans teaches that in Adam, all died. The very point that Adam died, according to God, so did everyone else. The same is true about the redemptive work of Christ. Romans 5 again says that just as IN ADAM, all died, so also IN CHRIST all were made alive. And to add another log to the Fire, Christ is said to have been slain from before the foundation of the world. So even then, from God's standpoint, there is no past or future- I AM. There is no qualifying adjective that goes along with that. Time is only for man.

In John 10 Jesus reinforces that again by showing the disciples the wheat field and saying "do not say that there are yet four more months until the harvest. For I say unto you that it is already white." So time is not a factor for God. Again in Revelation 10:5-7 it states "And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets."

In another post it was stated that the phrase "should be time no longer" was a faulty translation, but it is indeed correct. The Greek states that there would be "no chronos." Chronos is where we get our word "chronology" or time. Again, neither do I see Revelation in a futurist sense. As the beginning of the work says "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, and those things which must soon take place." The book is a "from the top down" perspective of all of time and space as it relates to the purpose of God. So I do not see this verse as saying, as some suggest, that it should be translated that "there should be no more delay." Rather, it reveals that according to God, the mystery is already complete from his perspective, but now it is just being fulfilled within time for man's sake.

I think that ultimately, in keeping with our view that Revelation indeed does not speak of a future literal coming of Christ, that the issue is almost moot. Christ was the essence or God in tangible form before his Incarnation. God caused a woman to conceive and bear his child in the flesh, and then Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 that after Christ ascended back into Heaven that he became a "life-giving Spirit." (Which he also goes on to irradicate any idea of some physical rapture that will take place in the future.)

I don't fully understand all of it. I just know that I am uncomfortable with claiming with certainty that he was indeed God. Yet I am also not so certain that I can claim that he is not. While I do lean more toward a Oneness perspective, it is also impossible to eliminate some principles of a Trinitarian point of view.

One day we will know with all understanding, but even then I doubt we'll really care. :pray:

[NormATive]

[/color]


I am not technically a Unitarian, or a Modalist, but I am also not really sure that I am a Trinitarian either.

I don't fully understand all of it. I just know that I am uncomfortable with claiming with certainty that he was indeed God. Yet I am also not so certain that I can claim that he is not. While I do lean more toward a Oneness perspective, it is also impossible to eliminate some principles of a Trinitarian point of view.

One day we will know with all understanding, but even then I doubt we'll really care. :pray:
Great post, Saintopher. I'm one with the Oneness! BTW, Oneness, I think, is the definition of Unitarian. :eek:

Welcome to T-web!

Norm A. Tive
:cool: (there's no smoking here :hmph: )

[dizzle]

Hey there guys, I will add this to my debate response roster. However, right up front, the article is to defeat Arian Unitarianism, not Sabellianism Unitarianism so I am going to deal with those specific points as that is the narrow focus. You will here back but it may be a little bit of time.

On a side note, I would not say that we are both preterists, for what you have described in your beliefs is not at all what I hold even if we may agree on some points.

[NormATive]

Hey there guys, I will add this to my debate response roster. However, right up front, the article is to defeat Arian Unitarianism, not Sabellianism Unitarianism so I am going to deal with those specific points as that is the narrow focus. You will here back but it may be a little bit of time.

On a side note, I would not say that we are both preterists, for what you have described in your beliefs is not at all what I hold even if we may agree on some points. Hi Dee Dee. Without trying to be a smart-ass, I would like to point out that I think you are trying to reenact the debates of the decades leading up to the Council at Nicea that Constantine ordered to unify his kingdom.

Most Unitarians today do not distinguish themselves between Arian and Sabellian arguments. Unitarians reject attempts to make G-d anything but a singular, spirit-being as held by the original Christian predecessors; the Jews.

Where Arius and Sabellius differed is on the specific "office," and relationship to G-d of Jesus. Both denied Jesus was G-d in a flesh suit. However, this distinction is not part of the debate today. Supernaturalism and Naturalism are the topics. Unitarians, generally speaking, seek to find naturalistic reasons for things we experience in the world - including religion.

Saying you are a Sabellian over against an Arian is really splitting hairs. Both were out-voted by Constantine and the Orthodox "majority" in the fourth century, although, interestingly, Arius was brought back to Alexandria to defend Orthodoxy against Sabellianism (considered a heretic before Arius).

The first ecumenical council at Nicea only included Father and Son (homoousios) in the Unity. The Holy Spirit didn't join the G-dhead until the second council some sixty years later. :wink:

Also, are you suggesting that there is more than one definition of Preterist? Either you believe the biblical prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, or you don't. Those who don't are Futurists (which include Pre and Post Tribulationsists) - you know; the Left Behind crowd.

Personally, I'm a Preterist. I don't believe the book of Revelation (the alleged source of Futurism) should have been included in the canon, as does the Eastern Orthodox community. It (the book of Revelation) makes no theological sense to me. I think it was a clever work of fantasy written as a secret criticism of hedonistic, gluttonous Rome during the late first century.

Norm A. Tive

Hey Norm... Just a reminder that we would like posters to refrain from profanity here at TWeb... :smile:

[AVmetro]

Personally, I'm a Preterist. I don't believe the book of Revelation (the alleged source of Futurism) should have been included in the canon, as does the Eastern Orthodox community. It (the book of Revelation) makes no theological sense to me. I think it was a clever work of fantasy written as a secret criticism of hedonistic, gluttonous Rome during the late first century.

That's an interesting position. Perhaps you should give it it's own thread in one of the appropriate forums and discuss it there?

-AV

[dizzle]

Hey Norm, I will get back to you on the Sabellian/Arian stuff for I believe you are mistaken on that point, or we are talking past each other, always possible on a forum board.

Also, are you suggesting that there is more than one definition of Preterist? Either you believe the biblical prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, or you don't. Those who don't are Futurists (which include Pre and Post Tribulationsists) - you know; the Left Behind crowd.

This should be another thread, but let me address it briefly. Preterists do not believe biblical propheices are fulfilled in Christ per se, but I think we are talking past each other. Historically, preterism has meant that most "end times" prophecies were fulfilled int he first century, not ALL. That is the historical position. It is only a relatively recent group of heretics that hold that ALL were. Theological words are not used by strict semantical rigidity to say such that to say if ANYTHING is future then one is a futurist. Theological terms WITHIN orthodoxy presume orthodoxy as the backdrop in which it is understood that certain things MUST be believed to be future. Anyways, though that is a diversion, and I do ask that we not sidetrack the thread more into this if that is cool. Yes I know I opened the door with my comment, thus my brief response here. What the former poster described is NOT preterism by any defintion but appears to hybridized idealism. My point was not to put such person down, just to distance any similarity in our beliefs on that count, as we do nothave similarities. Thus my comment was for clarity not polemics. I hope I explained myself. Thanks Norm.

[Saintopher]

Just an FYI, Normy...Saintopher is me- C.W. From the Closet. I figured you'd probably know, but it's good to see you here. :teeth:

[NormATive]

Preterists do not believe biblical propheices are fulfilled in Christ per se, but I think we are talking past each other. Historically, preterism has meant that most "end times" prophecies were fulfilled int he first century, not ALL. That is the historical position.
Okay. I see what you mean. You are right, not ALL prophecies are fulfilled, because most consider the advancing Kingdom as a prophecy. I consider the Kingdom an eventual reality, a natural consequence of Kingdom living by followers of the Messiah.

D@#% (oops!) semantics!

BTW, sorry for the expletive deleteds. I'm from a different sandbox (The Closet) where the kids are allowed a little freer reign. :blush:

Norm A. Tive

[NormATive]

Just an FYI, Normy...Saintopher is me- C.W. From the Closet. I figured you'd probably know, but it's good to see you here. :teeth:
Yes, I know. I followed the trail of cookie crumbs. :wink:

BTW, if you reverse C.W., you get WC, an abbreviation for Water Closet. :lmbo:

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.:ahem:

Norm A. Tive

[dizzle]

Okay. I see what you mean. You are right, not ALL prophecies are fulfilled, because most consider the advancing Kingdom as a prophecy. I consider the Kingdom an eventual reality, a natural consequence of Kingdom living by followers of the Messiah.

Hmm that wouldnot be all, the future physical rez and consumation are held to by orthodox preterists, those are the biggies.


D@#% (oops!) semantics!

BTW, sorry for the expletive deleteds. I'm from a different sandbox (The Closet) where the kids are allowed a little freer reign. :blush:

Norm A. Tive

No prob Norm, that is what i figured. Despite what Bob says, we dont' really like to thump heads too much.

[NormATive]

Hmm that wouldnot be all, the future physical rez and consumation are held to by orthodox preterists, those are the biggies.
Right. I prefer to keep it simple, and just say "advancing Kingdom." I'm not sure of all the hocus-pocus and corpse resuscitation, but I believe it (peace on Earth / reconciliation with G-d) will come.

No prob Norm, that is what i figured. Despite what Bob says, we dont' really like to thump heads too much.
I've heard that when you thump Bob's head, you can hear a barely audible, tinny, recording of The Greatful Dead's Truckin' coming out of his nasal cavaties.

Norm A. Tive

[dizzle]

Howdy Norm and Saintopher:


Like I said, I am slow, but usually pretty reliable :teeth:, plus my featured article threads are ones that I really try to make sure that I respond to eventually.

First Saintopher:

I hope you do not mind that my comments will be very brief as I am trying to not go too far afield of the scope of the initial article: proving that Christ is indeed very God, the Alpha and the Omega.

….I see this "coming to reward" as the judgment that happens immdiately after one dies and is in the presence of the Lord. It isn't necessarily a future
event as much as much as a very present reality.

When you say it isn’t necessarily a future event, I am unclear. However, I would agree that it is not solely relegated to our future as I see Matthew 25:31ff as being a present reality. But there is in fact a Final Judgment.


I think that the deeper thing to be looked at in this study is not so
much the title given to Christ, as much as how that title fits into the
bigger picture. The fact that he is called the "First and the Last/Alpha
and Omega" seems to indicate that yes, he is the sum of all things, but
yet before "time" began, how was he brought forth by a "Father" without
having a mother?

That is pressing terms that are meant to indicate relationship WAY too far. John 1:1 makes it clear that Christ existed into eternity past. How that is I have no problem saying that we finite beings may not fully understand.


Christ certainly was a very real essense in the O.T.

Christ was much more than that. Christ was a very real “person.”


Every manifestation
of God in the O.T., since God is a spirit, had to be manifested through
Christ in the forms of clouds, rocks, pillar of fire, burning bush, the
hand that wrote on the wall...etc. And it was also through Christ that
all things were created.

Don’t really know what is being said here so I will move on.


I am not technically a Unitarian, or a Modalist, but I am also not
really sure that I am a Trinitarian either. In Genesis, God said "Let Us
make man in our image." That "Us" is /elohim /which is the plural form
which says "those from above." In Isaiah, when it speaks about the
Christ child, it says that his name will be "El" which is the singual
form of "from above." So Christ would be a singual manifestation of HIM
who is above.

Huh? That certainly is quite a leap there. A great many titular names are give to Christ in 9:6.


John 1 says that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God and the word was God." It is very important to look at the tense of
the Greek. It says "in the beginning was the /logos /(essense or form)
and the /logos /was with God, and the /logos /*had been in *God." So
this is the essence, or nature of God that had come forth from God and
then been made skin.

That passage says no such thing. It says that the WORD (not the essence) was WITH God, a word indicating personal communion and phraseology indicating oneness yet distinctness, in a way that can only be adequately explained by Trinitarian thought.


While it is often said that Christs claim to the Pharisees was that
"before Abraham was, I AM" means that he is saying that he was in fact
God, I think that the context begs the question "was that really what
his intent?" Here he is found rebuking the Pharisees for having a form
of religion that is pretty much based on their lineage back to Abraham.
Their whole system of faith was based in a geneological relationship to
a man. In a sense, they seemed to look to Abraham as their god, and
Christ was trying to re-iterate to them that even Abraham looked to God,
which is what they /were not /doing. So in other words, he was telling
them "Get over Abraham, and get back to God." :attn:

Funny, the Pharisees understood exactly what He was claining. I don’t think they would have had a hissy for a feel-good statement of “let’s get back to God” unless the “God” they were to get back to was standing right in front of them.


So anyways, getting back to the First and the Last. This is a term that
is probably both relevant to time, as well as position. The phrase in
regard to position certainly does declare his supremecy to all other
creation, as even God himself said and as well as Paul. Christ was the
cheif instrument by which God framed all things. Now in regard to time,
He is the First and the Last, yet the Father is Eternal. The New
Testament teaches that Christ was /begotten /by the Father. The word
/begotten /(Greek- monogenes) means only one of its kind. Christ was the
only one of his kind that God brought forth for his eternal purposes.
This is right in line with the Oneness of God. Because of his Oneness,
then God cannot send forth anything other than what is unique to His
kind, which is Christ who is One with him. But back to Time. From God's
standpoint, there is no time. This might seem like a very philosophical
argument, but Scripturally it is very much in line with what Paul
reveals. As far as God is concerned, time is a non issue. Time is only
the antagonist, or womb by which Christ is conceived and grown in man.
Romans teaches that in Adam, all died. The very point that Adam died,
according to God, so did everyone else. The same is true about the
redemptive work of Christ. Romans 5 again says that just as IN ADAM, all
died, so also IN CHRIST all were made alive. And to add another log to
the Fire, Christ is said to have been slain from /before the foundation
of the world. /So even then, from God's standpoint, there is no past or
future- I AM. There is no qualifying adjective that goes along with
that. Time is only for man.

Not really sure what there is to debate there, except that an Open Theist would disagree. But since I am not an open theist, and there was really no overt disagreement with my article there, I will move on.


In John 10 Jesus reinforces that again by showing the disciples the
wheat field and saying "do not say that there are yet four more months
until the harvest. For I say unto you that it is /already white/." So
time is not a factor for God.

I do not disagree that God is outside of time. That does not mean that time is not a factor for God however since he communicates and fellowships with time-bound creatures, and thus must at least communicate in some sense within that framework. However, if you are referring here to a practice of referring to future events as past, I would not disagree that such is a Scriptural phenomena often referred to as the “prophetic perfect” tense.


Again in Revelation 10:5-7 it states "/And
the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up
his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who
created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the
things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein,
that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the
seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should
be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets./"

In another post it was stated that the phrase "should be time no longer"
was a faulty translation, but it is indeed correct. The Greek states
that there would be "no /chronos./" Chronos is where we get our word
"chronology" or time. Again, neither do I see Revelation in a futurist
sense.

This does not follow whatsoever. You state that we get our word “chronology” from “chronos” as if that proves that “chronos” mean “time itself.” That proves nothing except that it is a time related word. Of course it is! However, the verse is mmore accurately translated, “there shall be no more delay” which is the only rendering which makes sense in the context, especially if one is not futurizing the passage, since very OBVIOUSLY, time did not cease to exist in the first century. If so, give me a refund on my watch. I will quote my good friend John Reece (he actually knows the Greek and I have relied upon his expertise much in the past) who assisted me in this issue:

Hi Dee Dee,

This is in response to your question about the different translations of the clause in Revelation 10:6 -- “there shall be no more time” versus “there shall be no more delay”.

The Greek text is cronoV ouketi estai (chronos ouketi estai), which is literally “time no longer will be”.

According to C. H. Charles in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC) the idea underlying cronoV (chronos) here is that of an interval of time. Hence the clause means that there will be no more delay. See Hebrews 10:37, o ercomenoV hxei kai ou cronisei (ho erchomenos hxei kai ou cronisei = a quote of the LXX text of Habakkuk 2:3, “the coming one will come and will not delay”). The last word in the Greek quote (cronisei chronisei) is a verb form (future active indicative) of the noun rendered “time” (cronoV / chronos) in Revelation 10:6.

In Word Pictures in the New Testament, A T. Robertson wrote

“That there shall be time no longer” (hoti chronos ouketi estai). Future indicative indirect discourse with hoti. But this does not mean that chronos (time), Einstein’s “fourth dimension” (added to length, breadth, height), will cease to exist, but only that there will be no more delay in the fulfillment of the seventh trumpet (verse 7), in answer to the question, “How long?” (6:10).

So, the stark ambiguity of the actual words in the text is resolved by considerations of context and of the clear and obvious meaning of related scriptures.


This makes a great deal of sense.




As the beginning of the work says "The Revelation of Jesus
Christ, and those things which must soon take place." The book is a
"from the top down" perspective of all of time and space as it relates
to the purpose of God. So I do not see this verse as saying, as some
suggest, that it should be translated that "there should be no more
delay." Rather, it reveals that according to God, the mystery is already
complete from his perspective, but now it is just being fulfilled within
time for man's sake.

See above.

Norm, I will be responding to your post(s) next.

[dizzle]

Most Unitarians /today/ do not distinguish themselves between Arian and
Sabellian arguments. Unitarians reject attempts to make G-d anything but
a singular, spirit-being as held by the original Christian predecessors;
the Jews.

Well without getting into a whole history of whether or not the Jews believed in a strict “monad” concept of God – Bauckman in God Crucified does a good showing of how that is not the case, I would disagree with you about “most Unitarians” today. There is a world of difference between the two schools of thought and Unitarians of the Arian variety would view Sabellian Unitarians generally as heretics of a bad sort and vice versa. And for purposes of my article, the difference is of utmost importance. A Sabellian is not going to have too much of an issue of what I am driving at for they affirm the full deity of Christ, they just deny his uniqueness from the Father. An Arian affirms his uniqueness and denies His deity. This is not a minor rub.


Where Arius and Sabellius differed is on the specific "office," and
relationship to G-d of Jesus. Both denied Jesus was G-d in a flesh suit.

Incorrect as far as I understand at least the modern proponents of these ancient systems as stated above. Sabellians affirm the full deity of Christ and also affirm the Incarnation (T.D. Jakes is most likely a modern Sabellians as are the musicians of Philips, Craig, and Dean)


However, this distinction is not part of the debate today.
/Supernaturalism/ and /Naturalism/ are the topics. Unitarians, generally
speaking, seek to find naturalistic reasons for things we experience in
the world - including religion.

I think this is where we are having an issue. You appear to be referring to the “religion” of Unitarian Universalist. I am not. I am referring to Unitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians (for the Arian side) and Oneness Pentecostals (for the Sabellian side) neither of which “seek to find naturalistic reasons for things we experience in
the world - including religion.” You are doing a disservice to those groups in that description.


Saying you are a Sabellian over against an Arian is really splitting
hairs.

Blatantly incorrect as stated above. That would be like saying one is a Trinitarian and not a Unitarian would be splitting hairs. A Trinitarian has a whole lot more in common with a Sabellian, and though I do absolutely consider both a heresy, I do not take the hard line that Sabellianism is a salvational issue at this point in my studies.


Both were out-voted by Constantine and the Orthodox "majority" in
the fourth century, although, interestingly, Arius was brought back to
Alexandria to defend Orthodoxy against Sabellianism (considered a
heretic /before/ Arius).

Again, not going to get into Church history on this point, beyond the scope of my article, but the modern proponents are quite relevant.



The first ecumenical council at Nicea only included Father and Son
(homoousios) in the Unity. The Holy Spirit didn't join the G-dhead until
the second council some sixty years later. :wink:

Again outside the scope of my article, but arguments from silence are very rarely worthwhile. While most people focus on Nicea, I would agree that Chalcedon is much more important.


Also, are you suggesting that there is more than one definition of
/Preterist/? Either you believe the biblical prophecies were fulfilled
in Christ, or you don't. Those who don't are /Futurists/ (which include
Pre and Post Tribulationsists) - you know; the /Left Behind/ crowd.

Again outside the scope. Historically speaking, which ironically enough you were appealing to in your prior comments, Preterism HAS not referred to the heretical belief that ALL prophecy is fulfilled. I am sure you know that and do not need me to educate you on that point.

Personally, I'm a Preterist. I don't believe the book of _Revelation_
(the alleged source of Futurism) should have been included in the canon,
as does the Eastern Orthodox community. It (the book of Revelation)
makes no theological sense to me. I think it was a clever work of
fantasy written as a secret criticism of hedonistic, gluttonous Rome
during the late first century.

Again beyond the scope but I hold to the canonicity of Revelation and believe it refers primarily to first century events.

Now since you do not hold to Revelation (I did not know that when I issued my friendly challenge to you) it probably would not do too much good to debate the contents of the article which take as a foundational presumption that Revelation is authorative for doctrine.

[Saintopher]

That passage says no such thing. It says that the WORD (not the essence) was WITH God, a word indicating personal communion and phraseology indicating oneness yet distinctness, in a way that can only be adequately explained by Trinitarian thought.
I do not concede the argument because I feel that you have "beaten" me, but rather because by now the issue is probably dead...other than to say that I highly doubt that either you or I can come to a conclusive end on this subject; being that it has been debated for the last 1800 years.

I will, however, point you back to the Greek for your quote of John 1:1. Yes, in English it says that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d and the Word was G-d." Yet, the Bible was not written in English. It was written in Greek. The word Word in the Greek is logos. Logos is from the root word lego which means "1) to say, to speak a) affirm over, maintain b) to teach c) to exhort, advise, to command, direct d) to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say e) to call by name, to call, name f) to speak out, speak of, mention."

I did not say that Christ was not with G-d in the beginning. What I said was-
John 1 says that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God." It is very important to look at the tense of the Greek. It says "in the beginning was the logos (essense or form) and the logos was with God, and the logos had been in God." So this is the essence, or nature of God that had come forth from God and then been made skin.

The word with is the Greek word pros which means "1) to the advantage of 2) at, near, by 3) to, towards, with, with regard to."
All I am trying to communicate is that this is a good discussion, however, it is imperative to remember that the Bible was not written in English. This is probably not the place to discuss this but, do I believe that the Bible is inspired? Absolutely, but only in their original languages and in the context of the times that they were written in. Far too much has been lost in the translations for us to be able to come to absolute decisions about these things.

The other thing to consider is that when the New Testament was written, the only thing that they considered to be "Scripture" was the Torah- 1st 5 books of the O.T. The Poetry, Prophets, and Wisdom were just considered to be expansions on the tale. Inspired? Yes, but nothing different then what had already been revealed. Which makes it interesting that Paul never taught directly or emphatically that Christ was indeed G-d. The only thing close that he said was in Philippians 2 when he said that Christ was in the "very form/nature" of G-d." And yet even then, he wasn't making a doctrinal statement, he was telling the people what their attitudes should be.

Also-

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif
While it is often said that Christs claim to the Pharisees was that
"before Abraham was, I AM" means that he is saying that he was in fact
God, I think that the context begs the question "was that really what
his intent?" Here he is found rebuking the Pharisees for having a form
of religion that is pretty much based on their lineage back to Abraham.
Their whole system of faith was based in a geneological relationship to
a man. In a sense, they seemed to look to Abraham as their god, and
Christ was trying to re-iterate to them that even Abraham looked to God,
which is what they /were not /doing. So in other words, he was telling
them "Get over Abraham, and get back to God." :attn:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/misc/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif


Funny, the Pharisees understood exactly what He was claining. I don’t think they would have had a hissy for a feel-good statement of “let’s get back to God” unless the “God” they were to get back to was standing right in front of them.
I don't see anything in the passage that indicates anything about the Pharisees understanding exactly what Jesus was talking about. Sure, they wanted to stone him...but they also wanted to stone him on several other occasions for different reasons. Bottom line is that they knew that he was a threat to their neat little system.
Anywho...I am tired and need to leave work now.

Blessings.

[dizzle]

Hello again Saintopher:


I will, however, point you back to the Greek for your quote of John 1:1. Yes, in English it says that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d and the Word was G-d." Yet, the Bible was not written in English. It was written in Greek. The word Word in the Greek is logos. Logos is from the root word lego which means "1) to say, to speak a) affirm over, maintain b) to teach c) to exhort, advise, to command, direct d) to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say e) to call by name, to call, name f) to speak out, speak of, mention."

I would point you back to the idea that words do not appear in a vacuum and that that idea of the “Logos” already had a rich tradition at that time in conjunction with Wisdom theology. The Word was NOT impersonal, which was my point. The Word was always in fellowship with God.

You brought in some other issues such as Paul and his teachings on the nature of Christ which are beyond the scope of this thread as you even said (though his reworking of the Shema in 1 Cor 8:6 is a glaring example).


I don't see anything in the passage that indicates anything about the Pharisees understanding exactly what Jesus was talking about. Sure, they wanted to stone him...but they also wanted to stone him on several other occasions for different reasons. Bottom line is that they knew that he was a threat to their neat little system.

I will go down this street for one sec – but not to get too far off track the limited scope of the article. There is in fact very clear passages that the Pharisees knew exactly what Christ was claiming, and in light of His very bold claims there, there is great reason to think they though the same.

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

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.”

So there are great examples to know that in other less clear circumstances that they knew exactly what He was claiming.

[Oogabooga]

Hi Dee Dee,

I read the article as you recommended. In fact, I had read it awhile ago at tektonics.org.

It is abundantly clear to me that "Omega" refers to Jesus while "Alpha" refers to a three-headed angel.

Also, I came across a glaring error that rends your whole argument like the Ninevites rent their clothes: you twice used the word "affect" when it should have been "effect." Search-and-replace should be used to fix that up.

OK time to get serious.

In fact the argument is very strong. One of my internal "defense mechanisms" upon reading it was to question the authenticity of some of these first-and-last or Alpha-and-Omega passages. There is of course some justification for questioning it in 1:11, but no evidence against any of the others as far as I know. When this "it must be spurious" defense mechanism kicks in, the discerning Bible student must at least acknowledge that he's faced with a powerful argument.

I'm just kind of going to "think aloud" a bit here with some comments on the article. They aren't particularly intended as a rebuttal or an affirmation of your argument since I'm not one to make up my mind that quickly.

One of your points was that the "firstborn-from-the-dead/last Adam" interpretation of 1:17-18 has to be gleaned from other writings and is thus way out of context. I will grant you this for the "last Adam" (which can only be found in 1 Cor. 15 and implicitly in Rom. 5, both writings of Paul not John), but your point is not valid for the "first" part.

Rev. 1:5 introduces Jesus as 'the first begotten of the dead' and 1:18 directly associates the title 'the first and the last' with his resurrection. So I don't think you can deny that there is evidence that the title 'the first and the last,' at least partially, refers to his status as firstborn from the dead. And if this is the case, the 'last' part logically must be closely related in meaning to the 'first' part. "Last Adam" is a bit of a stretch but the general concept seems to fit.

However, all of that being said, the phraseological similarity of 1:17-18 with 1:5, [1:11], 21:6 and 22:13 (all of which MUST refer to the Father from a unitarian perspective) is a powerful stroke in your argument's favour. It is at very least incongruous that such similar language would be used to represent such hugely different concepts, especially given that God is jealous of the title as Is. 44 reveals.

As for who is speaking in Rev. 22:13, it certainly isn't clear from the text, at least in English. Is it not possible that verses 12-13 are a thing unto itself (much like 1:8), completely independent of the preceding and succeeding verses? If so, it may be that the angel is speaking in verses 9-11, God the Father in verses 12-13 (quoting Is. 40:10 in verse 12), the angel or John in verses 14-15, and Jesus in verse 16?

The fact that Jesus identifies himself in verse 16 implies to me that it's the first time he's spoken in awhile. This isn't required by the construction of the text but it's the feel I get when I try to read the passage in an unbiased way.

So in conclusion, I think Rev. 22 is a pretty confusing chapter to follow regardless of which side of the debate you're on. I think that for unitarians, the powerful force of your argument lies in the undeniable use of 'the first and the last' with respect to Jesus in 1:17-18 (and also 2:8 and possibly 1:11). Providing a non-divine interpretation of the phrase is a difficulty but a surmountable one. The real problem is the unitarian's requirement that the use of these synonymous terms (and the exact term 'first and last' if the Father is speaking in 22:13) with reference to both the Father and the Son in the same context, is merely a coincidence or a literary device.

If John is in fact using a literary device (parallelism) to attribute the same title, the first and the last, to both Father and Son with vastly different meanings, then as you pointed out he is treading on dangerous ground. I must confess that I don't have an answer to this point at present.

Dee Dee I welcome your thoughts and others'.

[dizzle]

Ooga, I am sorry I haven't gotten to this, I hope to soon.

[Oogabooga]

Ooga, I am sorry I haven't gotten to this, I hope to soon.
Whenever you get a chance... no rush

[Seth S]

If in Rev 22 we are to consider that the angel is calling out "I am the Alpha and Omega", then we have a huge problem. The reason is theat when John fell down to worship this angel, (Rev 22:8-9), this angel immediately tells him to worship God instead...

Rev 22:8-9 8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

This angel had thus told John that he is not worthy to be worshipped. This angel iss in fact the very same angel which is introduced in the previous chapter, and who serves as Johns' "tour guide"...

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Certainly an angel (one of seven angels) who refuses worship and directs worship toward God instead cannot possibly be the Alpha and Omega.

Seth ("Nowamfound")

[Elvey]

I would add to your argument by asking the uniterians "When did the Almighty die?"
Rev 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." NIV
Rev 1:17-18 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. NIV
Elvey

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I would add to your argument by asking the uniterians "When did the Almighty die?"
Rev 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." NIV
Rev 1:17-18 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. NIV
Elvey

To believe that Yahweh our Heavenly Father and Creator died is just plain foolishness. It was His son Yahshua who died, not Father Yahweh. It was Father Yahweh Who raised (resurrected) and redeemed his son Yahshua from death.