Christ – The Alpha and the Omega by Dee Dee Warren

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here
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&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

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
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/...m#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
OldShepherd:



"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?

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 [Greek]o ercomenoV[/Greek] 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
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 [Greek]o ercomenoV[/Greek] 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?

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

[Dee Dee Warren]

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) [it’s usage earlier in 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 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,

Scripture Verse:

Matthew 16:27 - 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
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.

[Ani Uriyah]

I responded to your comments in my other thread.