Christ – The Alpha and the Omega by Dee Dee Warren

[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.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 02:15 AM post located here
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

[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.

[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
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 : 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 . . .

[/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
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/sho...2520#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
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."

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
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
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
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 "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.

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
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
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?

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
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."

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: [Greek] Idou ercomai tacu kai o misqoV mou met emou apodounai ekastw wV to ergon estin autou[/Greek].

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


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, [Greek]misqoV[/Greek] 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."

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).

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 [Greek]Idou ercomai tacu kai o misqoV mou met emou apodounai ekastw wV to ergon estin autou[/Greek].

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

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 [Greek]misqoV[/Greek] 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
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