Christ - the Alpha andthe Omega

[dizzle]

Hey Everyone.. following I am reposting something I had written before in a debate with a Unitarian over the Alpha and Omega designation as applied to Christ. My article goes beyond the 12K post limitation, so I am making the executive decision to allow it to be split up since I am not posting this to an opponent to rebut but more for general information and commentary.

[dizzle]

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.”

There were many assumptions made in the Unitarian argument to this passage, the foundation of which is the assumption of the unipersonality of God and a “functional- only” Christology. Those are assumptions imported into this text, not derived from this text (and in fact highly foreign to it). Of course, I admit that I am coming to the text with an established Trinitarian presumption. However, I don’t have to make this passage testify to the Deity of Christ (although it does) for that is a concept very clearly taught in numerous other passages. However, the Unitarian must do so, and thus the Unitarian assumption is very strongly motivating the explanation. The Unitarian presumption will allow only one outcome, even despite the text.

On one tangential side note, the comment was made In Revelation, we find that it is Christ who is literally coming, as the representative of God. God is spoken of as "coming to earth", despite the fact that He never actually will, in the literal sense, leave heaven bodily and descend to earth.

Point of fact, Revelation does not in fact teach that Christ is “literally” coming, if by “literally” the meaning is that He is leaving Heaven bodily and descending to earth. That is not something taught at all by Revelation. It is taught elsewhere in the Bible, but not here, and is speaking of an entirely different event than the bulk of Revelation. However, my argumentation presented here does not rely just on that fact, which is just icing on the cake.

The assumption is also made in this statement and elsewhere that Christ is ONLY acting as the representative of the Father (and that such would necessarily exclude Him from the Identity of Deity which is a bald non sequiter to begin with). That is how the Unitarian explains the passages that seem to indicate a pluripersonality within God, by appealing to the concept of “agency.” If in fact, this is not a bodily coming to earth, and it is not, but rather a judgment from Heaven the need for a representative “agent” in the person of Christ is not needed. The only “agents” of God in Revelation are the earthly participants and demonic hosts perpetrating the destruction. And the very concept that Christ is “coming in the clouds,” is yet again, another reference to His Deity. The judgment cloud-comings are always comings of YHWH Himself in the OT, through the agencies of His creation, very often pagan nations. The “clouds” symbolize His glory, terror, and unapproachable holiness, and they are claimed for Christ. This sort of “functional only” Christology ignores the fact that Christ can function as Deity specifically because He is Deity. No creature can fully reveal Deity, and yet that is the claim made for Jesus.

The assumption that is also made that the Angel of the Lord is not Deity is a separate subject, but again is an assumption. If one removes the underlying presupposition of the unipersonality of God, there is no problem understanding it differently, and in fact there are various factors in the OT indicating such a different understanding rather than mere representative “agency.”

The statement is then made: Taking the Revelation and Isaiah passages together, we find that there who are entitled 'first and last', and but for two entirely different reasons.

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 circular.

I agree that Yahweh is called the First and the Last in Isaiah because He is the Creator and the Completer. He is also called that 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 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 “last Adam” as “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.”

You 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 the Unitarian argument does argue that it IS referring to the Father) .

Not only that, but that title had already become an exchange term for God Himself. That is exactly who the first century Jew would think of when someone was identified as the “First and the Last.” To try to use that term as indicating anything other than complete Sovereignty is to make nonsense of the term. God uses it of Himself almost polemically. He is not [I]just claiming to be the First and the Last, as if whatever exists between “first” and “last” has nothing to do with Him, but is claiming to be the First and the Last and everything that is between. To use that exact same phrase to mean something else is to reduce it to nonsense and to not take into consideration the “everything in between” aspect of its meaning and its polemical placements in Isaiah.

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 not in fact correct methodology and highly superficial. Good hermeneutics just do not work that way. There is no indication in the passage that it is alluding 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 very same 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 in Revelation it is clearly used of Christ, but just for the sake of discussion, we will assume for a moment in this part of the conversation that in Revelation 22:13, it is speaking of the Father, and He claims to be the First and the Last. 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 different from “Alpha and Omega,” it is simply sequentially alphabetically expressing the same thing that was expressed sequentially numerically. It also does not mean anything different that “Beginning and End.” They are synonymous and yet Jesus claims that title for Himself. 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.

As alluded to already, where that term appears 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 Firstborn and Last Adam). Creatures don’t take for themselves titles of Deity. Isaiah Chapters 40-55 contain the strongest and great divine assertions of God’s unique identity as Creator and sovereign of the universe. You cannot divorce “First and Last” from that “baggage” that it carries along with it which is repeated three times in those chapters.

[dizzle]

Also, Christ is explicitly referred to in the rest of the NT (multiple times – though foolishly denied by the Unitarians) as the Creator would which fit in also with the “creatorship” aspect of the “First and Last.” He is also referred to/alluded to as the Creator in Revelation. He is the origin of the creation of God (Revelation 3:14) and the Root and Offspring of David, in other words, David’s Creator and David’s son (Revelation 22:16).

Interestingly also, the term “Beginning and End,” is used synonymously with “First and Last” and “Alpha and Omega” in the book equating the three terms, and certainly loaded within them is the concept of the Creatorship of the world. And yet the same word for “beginning” is applied to Christ in 3:14 in the very context of Creation. The connection is obviously meant to be made.

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 claiming 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).


This incorrect and untenable assumption unfounded by, and in fact contradicted by the text, continues with the angel who is allegedly speaking in Revelation 22:13. Some texts have it indicated that it is Christ Himself speaking. I certainly believe that it is Christ Himself speaking. The fact that an angel was speaking, and then there is a change to Christ without explicit introduction causes no problem in the style and format of Revelation. Christ is the one who has been revealed (and remember that the book is the “Revelation” of Jesus Christ – the finally unveiling of who He really is) throughout Revelation as the one who is coming quickly (and as a thief). A statement to that affect, with nobody explicitly identified as the speaker already happened earlier in Revelation at 16:15. It would be natural to assume the same here. The prior statements to such effect earlier to the seven churches (though speaking of a different “coming[s]”) were made personally by Him.

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 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 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 be speaking. 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 does not necessitate there that the actual “Alpha and Omega” be actually speaking. This is highly inconsistent.

It was said, The passages you cited from Revelation are important, because they demonstration the principle of representation. In fact, John speaks with an angel who uses the title 'Alpha and Omega' (a title which is never used of Christ, and exclusively used of God) - thus hence it is obvious that this angel represents the Father, not the son.

No, no such thing is obvious at all. The only thing that is obvious are the presuppositions brought here. We will go through this in great detail. First, there is warrant for not believing that the angel is speaking at all in that statement. In the OT with the exception of the Angel of the Lord (for very specific reasons) the general pattern is that a messenger or representative of God (such as a “regular angel” or prophet) prefaces such statements with an explicit identification that it is God’s words by “thus saith the Lord” or something to that affect. (yes, there are a few ‘possible’ exceptions to that pattern, but it is undeniably the majority pattern)

Second, the Unitarian argument must assume that “Alpha and Omega” is never used of Christ, but that is assuming what must proven and was not proven. And in fact, “Alpha and Omega” is synonymous with “First and Last” which has been used of Christ. The Unitarian problem is that they must maintain that Revelation 1:8, using the title “Alpha and Omega,” refers only to the Father, so then it must only be the Father here. But the speaker here shows the terms to be synonymous with one of the titles already unambiguously being used to refer to Christ. The Unitarian must maintain that identical phrases mean totally different things in similar contexts. 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,” so it must mean the Father here. However, the Unitarian does not apply that same standard to the term “First and Last” for if he did he would have to argue that Jesus is in fact speaking in 22:13.

Also, it is obvious that the angel does not only represent the Father (if the angel is even representing the Father at all) , but in fact represents Christ. Within the very same passage, if one wants to interject the Father here, the angel is sent by BOTH and is identified as the angel of BOTH. There is no indication of, or warrant for, positing two different angels. An appeal that the “angel of Jesus” spoken of in 22:16 is different from the angel speaking in verses 6-15 is completely specious. And, once again, using the Unitarian reasoning, saying that it is not the angel continuing to speak in verse 16, if indeed he is speaking throughout verses 6-15 is without merit. To restate what has already been said, the fact that the phrase “I Jesus” appears does not of necessity mean that Jesus has now started speaking there in the Unitarian argument since the phrase “I am the Alpha and Omega” does of necessity mean that the Father has started speaking there, as the Unitarian maintains it is the angel speaking. If the angel is speaking before, it is the angel speaking throughout.

The only reason for the Unitarian to try and say otherwise is because he must make the angel in verse 16 different from the angel speaking, but that makes no sense in context. An angel was speaking, and then Jesus supposedly steps in and talks about an angel speaking but is referring to an entirely different angel?? Unbelievable. The statement is in fact a parallel to the previous angelic statement in 22:6 which makes it obvious there is one angel sent by BOTH, or alternatively, and what I hold, is that verse 22:6 is again another unequivocal reference to the Deity of Christ. He is the one who sent the angel to testify to His bondservants (as the prologue clearly states) and thus He is the God of the spirits of the prophets as stated in that verse.

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

The entire context shows that it is Christ who is the One who is coming quickly. The Father is not coming quickly and it is totally begging the question to say that solely the Father is coming quickly representatively through Christ. The One who is coming quickly (who is identified as such unambiguously throughout the entire New Testament) is Christ. The One who is coming quickly also claims to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. It is an unequivocal reference to the Deity of Christ as the rest of the chapter even makes more explicit when the closing words are the call for Christ, not the Father, to come. The focus is on Christ who has already claimed the title “First and Last” earlier in the book. Again, in inconsistency, the Unitarian wants to argue that since the Father already claimed “Alpha and Omega” earlier (1:8) that must mean that the Father is being referred to here, but must be painfully inconsistent because Jesus already claimed the “First and the Last,” so the same argument can be made that it must be Jesus speaking here!


The Father never makes the claim that He is coming quickly in the NT (and any reference to YHWH coming in the OT in a similar manner is simply begging the question that Christ is not YHWH, the totality of the ease with which the NT transfers the identity of the one coming [without qualification!!] is testimony to the identification of Jesus as YHWH). You cannot posit that the angel is speaking for the Father, as the rest of the chapter makes it clear who is coming quickly and who would be the only person for whom that would refer. Christ. It is totally importing and reading one’s theology into the text to make the coming refer ultimately to the Father. It is a judgment-coming and the Father has committed all judgment to the Son (Jn 5:22 – which is another explicit reference to His Deity by the way).

And if one goes back to the Old Testament to see how the passages involving the “coming” of YHWH in judgment were handled it is crystal clear. YHWH is said to “come” in judgment (very often upon or with clouds) many times. But of course, He did not physically saddle up a cloud, nor did He literally “come”, he used human agents/natural forces for His judgment. But the agents or representatives are never the ones said to be coming in such apocalyptic language (on the clouds or otherwise) … that is role of YHWH alone. When God used judgment agents in the OT, and He did numerous times, the “comings” (most especially the terrible cloud-comings) were always still ascribed to Him!! Not to the agents. And that is exactly what is going on here. YHWH is again coming on a cloud, because Jesus is YHWH. This is not an unprecedented break with the OT pattern of cloud-comings wherein now the “agent” is the one coming. The Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible, and YHWH comes on the clouds in judgment.

[dizzle]

The only time the image of coming in clouds is used in the OT in reference (at least to a Unitarian) to someone other than YHWH (but of course I maintain that it is YHWH there too) is in Daniel 7. But this is not a coming “down” to earth to judge it, but rather a coming “up” to heaven to receive the Kingdoms which speaks primarily of Christ’s ascension but does continue on through His vindication in the destruction of Jerusalem (and to the nonpreterist, then up until His vindication at the end of this age to begin the future Millennium). And again, there no whiff of agency here, the one who is coming in the clouds is the one who is mentioned. And in Daniel 7, there absolutely is no “representative” coming since Christ is coming to the Father Himself, and certainly is not representing the Father to the Father. The Biblical pattern is clear. And again “agency” or “functional” Christology very often begs the implicit ontology underlying it, whether acknowledged or not.

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.

Following there were some spurious and silly accusations as follows:

We see therefore, that the book of Revelation as it stands, is not sympathetic to the Trinitarian position - and it is for this very reason that Trinitarians have found it "necessary" to translate the text in a way that favors their theology.

Nonsense. This is pure spin-doctoring. First of all, I did not even use those verses (Revelation 1:4-8) as a proof in my argument. The textual variants are widely known and well-documented.

It was also said,

But we have a second method of verification, and that is the title 'the Almighty'. This word means precisely what it says, the 'All-powerful'. Clearly, it is a word which can only be applied to God, and never to Christ, since the Son is in subjection to his Father. This same title ('Almighty') is consistently applied in the Old Testament to God, and is never used of Christ - nor can it be.

Again, this is just stating one’s case and not proving it, and begging the question. Yes, the word means all-powerful, but the claim that it can only be applied to God is an assumption that is being made here. The reasoning that it could never be applied to Christ because of the subjection of the Son to the Father is without merit. An all-powerful Being can purposely and voluntarily subject Himself (which is what Philippians 2:5-11 is all about). Difference in role or function does not equate with inequality in being. I am in subjection, as the Bible commands, to my husband. That does not mean that he inherently has any more “power” than I do. It is a voluntary submission. Yes, “Almighty” is used consistently in the OT to God, but the argument here is again assuming the unipersonality of God and that Christ was not included in the Divine Identity in the OT or being referred to at all.

There is much evidence in the NT that Christ is in fact all-powerful. Very briefly, He is credited with sustaining all things by the word of His power, He created all things, in Him all things consist. That is all-powerful. All judgment and authority have been committed unto Him, that requires all-power. He searches the hearts and minds (which by the way is something that YHWH claims for Himself) which requires all-power in that it requires all-wisdom. He is omnipresent which again requires all-power. This was of course a very brief comment on this particular issue of being all-powerful.

There were also some really silly comments made about some Trinitarian conspiracy in the NKJV and NLB to include disputed words in Revelation 1:11. The fact that the words are in dispute and do not appear in many manuscripts is clearly documented in the NKJV which tends to include all disputed verses, irregardless of doctrine (which explains more why they are in the NKJV rather than some Trinitarian conspiracy, but shucks, that explanation is just not as exciting nor as libelous). I sure hope that the accuser is going to be consistent and insist that there is a great Unitarian conspiracy within the NKJV as well for not translating John 1:18 with the information from the earliest manuscripts which have “only begotten God” where “only begotten Son” is. Dang it, the Trinitarians must have been sleeping that day…. (but don’t fear, the Trinitarian conspirators saw fit to corrupt the NRSV with “God the only Son” in John 1:18 while the Unitarian conspirators were sneaking over to Rev 1:11 to remove those words). The footnotes in the NKJV are very clear and the reasoning behind their choices is documented in the preface. And I am wondering, are the Trinitarians over at Zondervan just a little less sneaky….. hmmmm. Must be something in the water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Piebald]

Fan-tastic!! :thumb:

By the way, do you think the Christadelphian duo has discovered this forum yet?

[dizzle]

Thanks!!!

I do not know if they have... but I do know that Ev and the Lesser Ev have their own forum now which keeps them pretty busy.

[AVmetro]

Good work Dee Dee! ;)

I do not know if they have... but I do know that Ev and the Lesser Ev have their own forum now which keeps them pretty busy.

....and if you decide to keep them busy yourself, they'll ban you. :)

[dizzle]

Serious?

[AVmetro]

Serious?

Serious? = "Good work Dee Dee" ?

..or..

Serious? = "Ev and Fort will ban you" ?

1.] Very serious :)

2.] Very serious :rant:

[dizzle]

If I didn't already have my banning of the year, I might be tempted to go over there.

[AVmetro]

If I didn't already have my banning of the year, I might be tempted to go over there.

I've still got my lastest response saved on my HDD. It was, of course, never posted as a result of my banishment. Pretty low to post your last response and then proceed to ban your opponent before he can reply, eh?

Is that your final draft, Dee Dee? If so, do you care if I post it on my site?

God bless

[dizzle]

AVmetro:


I've still got my lastest response saved on my HDD. It was, of course, never posted as a result of my banishment. Pretty low to post your last response and then proceed to ban your opponent before he can reply, eh?

Is that your final draft, Dee Dee? If so, do you care if I post it on my site?

God bless

Dear AV:

Ha!! Well how about this, one forum I posted at at few years ago had a delay where the Admin read all the posts before they went up, and this one particular and well-known person read my post defeating him, and then banned me and never told anyone at the site.

I have a new IP now, should I go back? :rofl:

And AV, I never revised it any because Ev never got around to completely answering, so sure, it is as final as it gets right now. All of my works are works in progress.

[Gavin]

bump


this a great article. :thumb:

[Piebald]

Just givin' a bump to this excellent thread

[Athanasian]

Where is this 'Christadelphian' forum?

[Sher]

On sort of a related note, to date no one has ever been able to refute my point on Isa 9:6 that to me also confirms the Son's deity:

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.How can a "created" being be everlasting/eternal (depending on your version)? I've seen them twist mighty God to not be almighty God, so not a deity, but no one has been able to get past the everlasting designation.

Great post Dee-Dee :thumb:

[AVmetro]

They'll simply insist that this would make Christ "the Father", but they're mistaken :)

[Reasonable]

Sherbear,
Non-trinitarians will simply reply that the term "everlasting" goes forward, not backwards. Thus, when we are offered "everlasting life", we do not use this to teach that we always existed. Same with the "everlasting fire", "everlasting good news", "everlasting salvation", etc.
They could also find possible support for that argument by noting in Psalm 90:2 the following:

"Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

Here they may argue that the double "everlasting" highlights that God's quality of "everlasting" goes in both directions whereas the Messiah's and our own "everlasting" is uni-directional.

While it is difficult to tell if this is how Is 9:6 means it, to be dogmatic about it from a Trinitarian viewpoint is difficult. Especially when the same verse seems to imply that the Messiah was not eternal (the whole birth imagery).

Anyway, that's an argument I saw on a non-Trinitarian website.

[dizzle]

Hmm, I never saw that argument before, but I could I think pretty easily defeat it though. But I do not use Isaiah 9:6 too much with Arian-type Unitarians but I do use it with Sabellian Unitarians believe it or not since it is one of their proof texts.

[Socrates]

I totally concur with SherBear that Isaiah 9:6 is an excellent support for Trinitarianism :thumb:. This child who would be born is the "Mighty God", the same phrase used of Jehovah in the very next chapter (10:21). Even the word "wonderful" (pele) is only ever used of God.

Also, the translation "Eternal Father" is wrong. The Hebrew is ’abî ‘ad. ‘ad (eternity) is in the construct state, so Hebrew scholar Dr Gleason Archer says it must be translated "Father of Eternity", and that taking the construct state as adjectival just doesn't fit the context.

This takes care of the argument Reasonable cited from the non-trinitarian cite. It also takes care of the Sabellians, since they would use the common but incorrect translation to claim that Jesus is the Father as well.

[Reasonable]

Socrates,
Thanks for the information on the 'eternity/eternal' term. I am in no way trying to defend non-Trinitarians here.

I have "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended" by Greg Stafford and note a footnote on page 82 regarding the "father of eternity" and Ron Rhodes use of it.

"Rhodes prefers the translation "Father of eternity." He concludes that "the phrase 'Father of eternity' in Isaiah 9:6 means eternal...But Rhodes here assumes a meaning for the Hebrew word ('ad) in the phrase ('avi 'ad). According to KB (679-680) the word 'ad can mean "lasting future." "forever," "for all time," and they even give "eternal" as a description of the mountains in Habakkuk 3:6 (harrey 'ad). Obviously these mountains were not eternal in the sense of having always existed! Yet that is what Rhodes would have us believe, for the reference in Isaiah 9:6. KB considers "father for ever" to be the proper sense in this reference in this text...The LXX does not translate 'avi 'ad though some manuscripts read "Father of the age that is to be revealed."...The Latin reads pater future saeculie ("Father of future ages")." -end of quote

This, along with the birth imagery in this verse, the argument some Christadelphian made somewhere on the Web about Is 9:6 saying 'the Messiah would be called these titles sometime in the future and not now', and that the term 'ad does not always point to the eternal past are enough to call into question for non-Trinitarians the true meaning of this verse. Of course, faith is not a possession of all people and Jesus could not make the religious leaders believe him even when he performed all of the miracles.

The only point I am making is that some non-Trinitarians have responed to these arguments and these will probably seem pretty powerful to someone who is already a non-Trinitarian. That's why I try to stick to the arguments that are more straight forward in regards to this subject.

[Athanasian]

That stuff about 'father of the ages' is good, and helps fight the Oneness people. With Isaiah 9:6, and 'I and my Father are one', it's pretty hard to get them away from the idea that Jesus and the Father are one person.

The quote from John is still a problem - any ideas? Why did Jesus say I and my Father are one? That sounds very much like two people are one person, and when you add the fact that both are 'Alpha and Omega' in Revelation, and both are 'first and last', and both are 'God', and there is only one God, it gets tricky.

[Reasonable]

Athanasian,
Many people understand Jesus' words at John 10:30 to be, not one literally, but one in purpose. We note Jesus said elsewhere that he and his Father were "one." See John 17:20-23 where Jesus says of his disciples, "that they may be one just as we are one." Here Jesus is talking about being one in sense of purpose as he switches between the term "one" and the term "union". (see also John 14:20) Same with 1 Cor 3:6-8. It has nothing to do as far as saying Jesus and his Father are the same person and it would be really stretching it for Modalist to say that 'he and the Father being "one"' in John 10:30 is different than what he meant when he said 'he and his Father were "one"' in John 17. Though I am sure they could make some argument to that effect if they try hard enough.

[Athanasian]

Today @ 08:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44783#post44783)
Reasonable:
Many people understand Jesus' words at John 10:30 to be, not one literally, but one in purpose.

Ok, but try explaining that to a Oneness person. They'll insist that 'you have to read the text as it stands'. They tell you that going to another passage of Scripture (especially a later one), is taking Jesus' words out of context.

We note Jesus said elsewhere that he and his Father were "one." See John 17:20-23 where Jesus says of his disciples, "that they may be one just as we are one." Here Jesus is talking about being one in sense of purpose as he switches between the term "one" and the term "union". (see also John 14:20) Same with 1 Cor 3:6-8.

I've seen Unitarians quote that, and Trinitarians insist that they are 'taking it out of context'! LOL! I guess that no one has really decided on this one yet.

It has nothing to do as far as saying Jesus and his Father are the same person and it would be really stretching it for Modalist to say that 'he and the Father being "one"' in John 10:30 is different than what he meant when he said 'he and his Father were "one"' in John 17. Though I am sure they could make some argument to that effect if they try hard enough.

I like your use of John 17. It's just that most Trinitarians I've seen object to Unitarians using this to refute the use of John 10:30 as a claim that Jesus is part of the Godhead.

[Athanasian]

What about the Alpha and Omega and 'first and last' and 'almighty God' ones?

When things are said of the Father, and they are also said of Jesus, and the Bible says 'We have one Father' (meaning the Father in heaven), it gets tough. I find Modalism very difficult to deal with.

[Reasonable]

[QUOTE]Today @ 08:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44788#post44788)
Athanasian:
Athanasian said,
"Ok, but try explaining that to a Oneness person. They'll insist that 'you have to read the text as it stands'. They tell you that going to another passage of Scripture (especially a later one), is taking Jesus' words out of context."

If we did not look at other verses to explain things, we would draw many incorrect conclusions! Do they think Peter is Satan? They would if they took Jesus' words at Matt 16:23 verbatim without considering others. Keep this in mind: You WILL NOT be able to convince someone who does not want to be convinced. Just give them your answer and be done with it. In the same book (John) we have Jesus saying basically the same thing and there is really no reason to attribute two different meanings to the same basic sentence said by the same man. If they don't accept that, I don't know what to tell you.

Athanasian said,
"I've seen Unitarians quote that, and Trinitarians insist that they are 'taking it out of context'! LOL! I guess that no one has really decided on this one yet."

True, very true! Yet there are many Trinitarians that do not even reference John 10:30 as support because they do beleive the meaning of Jesus' words are explained quite clearly at John 17. To me, personally, some Trinitarians grab any and every verse they imagine might support the cause. They don't need to do that. There is no need to try to make up a reason why Jesus' words at John 10 and John 17 are not parallel thoughts. Shoot, we use for more obscure verses with much less similar wording to prove the Trinity elsewhere so with such a powerful parallel between the two, why fight it? It's not like the Trinity will fall on its face if we can't have John 10:30. And I don't buy the 'Why did they then try to stone Jesus unless he was claiming to be God?' argument. Take that argument and apply it to the Apostle Paul, Stephen, James, etc and see how far you get. A person can remain fully a Trinitarian and be true to the obvious parallel between John 10 and John 17. Many are!

I'll get back to you later on the 'Alpha and Omega' thing.
Gotta run.
PS- How do you get the quotes from other people in a brown box?

[bar Jonah]

DeeDee, I had to read your piece very quickly, but I think I understood you to infer that YHWH refers not to the Son but to the Father? Did I misunderstand that?

Just to make sure you're aware of this (forgive me if you already are), but YHWH in the Old Testament refers to either the Son or to God in His entireity, but not to the Father specifically. Jeremiah 23:5-6 indicate that the Messiah's name is YHWH (translated as "LORD" in most English Bibles). So this may infer that YHWH refers to God, or specifically to the Son. But clearly not to just the Father, distinctly.

Just for clarification.

[Socrates]

Maybe we should move some of the Isaiah 9:6 discussion to the Exegesis board, so more heavyweight exegetes can help. I think that the website Reasonable cited backs up my contention that the construct state of ‘ad should be rendered "of eternity" rather than adjectivally. The Vulgate is actually "Pater futuri saeculi" and the word "futuri" seems to an unwarranted insertion.

[AVmetro]

How's work on the article going, DDW? :idea:

[dizzle]

I am done with it!!

[AVmetro]

Great, I thought so ;). Is it ready for testing?

[Cal_Minian]

03-25-2003 @ 02:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44856#post44856)
RightIdea:

DeeDee, I had to read your piece very quickly, but I think I understood you to infer that YHWH refers not to the Son but to the Father? Did I misunderstand that?

Just to make sure you're aware of this (forgive me if you already are), but YHWH in the Old Testament refers to either the Son or to God in His entireity, but not to the Father specifically. Jeremiah 23:5-6 indicate that the Messiah's name is YHWH (translated as "LORD" in most English Bibles). So this may infer that YHWH refers to God, or specifically to the Son. But clearly not to just the Father, distinctly.

Just for clarification.


Dear RightIdea,
I can think of many places where YHWH can only be the Father in the OT and none that could only be the Son and not the Father in context. There is no better example than Psalm 110:1 which is extensively quoted in the GNT, thus identifying YHWH as the Father and the Lord as Jesus.


ASV Psalm 110:1 Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at
my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

[Non-Trinitarian]

Who is the Alpha and the Omega?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jaltus]

I highly recommend Richard Bauckham's The Theology of the Book of Revelation for this issue and for Christology in Revelation in general.

[dizzle]

Oh boy nonTrin this wasn't where I was thinking..... but here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3024


I thought this thread was closed. I am going to be answering on the thread above, that is the featured article thread.

And BigJ I have read that book, very good.

[AVmetro]

Hi, NT-

This is Dee Dee's thread so I'll just make a few comments below:

NT stated:

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

It depends on what the title denotes, entails, implies etc,. We wouldn't argue a unique quality to the term "apostle". I believe "The First and the Last" applies uniquely to God (in fact, aside from Christ {the nature of whom is under dispute}, it does) and is a term of identification for YHWH.

NT stated:

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

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

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

NT, you will need to first prove your assertion that this is the "meaning behind it" or that it is a qualifying clause to begin.
I recently posted on an email list in response to this very topic:

First, it is an assumption to state that Christ is not the "Alpha and Omega" or that He is never called such. I'll leave that issue to a different thread for now. However, I believe that "the First and the Last" is an interchangeable phrase with "Alpha and Omega" and "Beginning and End" as all three *denote* essentially the same thing. That is, 'alpha' is the FIRST letter of the Greek alphabet whereas 'omega' is the LAST letter of the Greek alphabet. Same applies to "the beginning and the end" i.e. the FIRST and LAST of an event.

Secondly, you assume that a reference to death and resurrection *qualifies* Christ's statement. They certainly *aren't* parallel as this would mean that Christ is the "first" raised from the dead AND the "last" raised from the dead. Yet we know this not to be true. It's nonsensical. Why not simply see it as a declaration of His victory over death? This victory is complementary to His Sovereignty. What I see is an excellent confirmation of the hypostatic union of Christ i.e. that He is 1.] God and 2.] Man who died and rose again to live forever and ever more.

To clarify further:

"I am He who

1.] lives

and was

2.] dead.."

Which would correspond to give you:

"I am the First" --> who lives

"I am the Last" --> who was dead (?)

Or if you switch the order, "first to die and last to be resurrected" (?)

Either way they do not work.

NT stated:

JW’s feel it is significant that in both instances where Jesus’ uses the title F&L, he immediately mentions his death and resurrection.

True, but you need to demonstrate how this relates to "the First and the Last".

NT stated:

Obviously Jehovah does not include this distinction in His title for the simple fact that God cannot die (see Hab 1:12).

In the context of Habbakuk, no, as God was yet to "...become flesh" (Jn 1:14).

NT stated:

Thus, while Jesus uses the same title as God, it is with a qualification of his death and resurrection. The only other time the expression F&L appears in Revelation is at Rev 22:13 but in this instance, the instance in question, the qualification of it referring to his death and resurrection does not appear. Thus, we do not believe the title F&L as used in Rev 1:17 and 2:8 is the same as it is used at Rev 22:13.

Again, a qualification needs to be unequivocably demonstrated, not asserted.

NT stated:

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

I think it's patent that "The First and the Last" is interchangeable with "Alpha and Omega" as well as "The Beginning and the End" (Rev22). It is like the threefold affirmation of God's Sovereignty in declaring Himself to be "King of kings, Lord of lords, God of gods". They all three carry the same idea of Sovereignty.

God bless--AV

BTW, do you have another name you go by often? Thanks.

[dizzle]

:argh:

AV, remember I watned to keep everything on the article thread! :whack:

[dizzle]

oh and good points, please repost them on that thread pretty please after NonTrin forgives me for running him all over the board and reposts his comments on the main article thread?

[AVmetro]

Dee Dee Warren:

:argh:

AV, remember I watned to keep everything on the article thread! :whack:

:grrr: :smile: You know, I knew that and was like "eh, I'll just move 'em all later.." :nsm: