Christ – The Alpha and the Omega by Dee Dee Warren

[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.

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.

Yes, I know. I followed the trail of cookie crumbs.

BTW, if you reverse C.W., you get WC, an abbreviation for Water Closet.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Norm A. Tive

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

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

[Dee Dee Warren]

Howdy Norm and Saintopher:


Like I said, I am slow, but usually pretty reliable , 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."

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 [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]cronoV ouketi estai[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] (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 [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]cronoV[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] (chronos) here is that of an interval of time. Hence the clause means that there will be no more delay. See Hebrews 10:37, [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]o ercomenoV hxei kai ou cronisei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] (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 ([color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]cronisei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] chronisei) is a verb form (future active indicative) of the noun rendered “time” ([color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]cronoV[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] / 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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

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-

Quote:

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."

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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

John 5:18

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.

John 10:33

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

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'.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.