Revelation 2:8

[Wootah]

8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Q: Who is the First and Last?
A: God.

If God is the first and last and also died and came to life again isn't that Jesus.

How does anyone get around this scriptural interpretation?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 58 by onewithhim]

In an Interlinear Bible, at Revelation 2:8 the Greek letters for Alpha and Omega are NOT there. That is my point.

What is your point? They terms are synonymous. I don't see you making a point. I see you making a claim without a point.

Because they are not there, the meaning of that verse is different than Revelation 1:8 where the Greek letters appear for Alpha and Omega.

The meaning is the same. The only difference is that John doesn't need to repeat himself exhaustively. It is sufficient enough to refer to the one without repeating the other. The "first and the last" are synonymous with "the alpha and the omega". He could have added "the beginning and the end" as well, but the reader gets the point by this time, and doesn't need to see it all repeated over and over. Simply using either one of these titles is more than enough. That's the point.

Again, this is right in line with John's introduction in that 'in the beginning was the word" is saying the same thing. The beginning exists because the word exists; the word is existence. Nothing exists apart from the word, including God.

Paul points out that God is "of whom all things exist". This denotes God as the origin of what exists, and of existence. The problem most don't seem to understand is that the origin of anything can't be the thing itself. If this was the case, then God would be what exists; God would be what is created. I'm sure you would agree that this can't be the case, yet the same holds true for the word. God can't be the word; yet the word brings God into existence. It is only in, with and through the word that God exists. The word is being; the ground of being; eternal existence. The word exists "in the beginning". Therefore the word is without beginning or end. The word is eternal, and yet Paul is quite clear in pointing out that although Christ is the means by which all things are created, Christ isn't God. This doesn't negate the fact that Christ is synonymous with the word and therefore eternal.

No, "the first and the last" are not synonymous with Alpha and Omega, and you could see what I mean if you would look at an Interlinear Bible where the Greek is shown along with the English. Since you will not check that out, this conversation is pointless.

God existed before the Word existed, and God can exist very well without anything or anyone else. There is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest that "the Word brought God into existence." Neither is there any suggestion that the Word is eternal.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 58 by onewithhim]

In an Interlinear Bible, at Revelation 2:8 the Greek letters for Alpha and Omega are NOT there. That is my point.

What is your point? They terms are synonymous. I don't see you making a point. I see you making a claim without a point.

Because they are not there, the meaning of that verse is different than Revelation 1:8 where the Greek letters appear for Alpha and Omega.

The meaning is the same. The only difference is that John doesn't need to repeat himself exhaustively. It is sufficient enough to refer to the one without repeating the other. The "first and the last" are synonymous with "the alpha and the omega". He could have added "the beginning and the end" as well, but the reader gets the point by this time, and doesn't need to see it all repeated over and over. Simply using either one of these titles is more than enough. That's the point.

Again, this is right in line with John's introduction in that 'in the beginning was the word" is saying the same thing. The beginning exists because the word exists; the word is existence. Nothing exists apart from the word, including God.

Paul points out that God is "of whom all things exist". This denotes God as the origin of what exists, and of existence. The problem most don't seem to understand is that the origin of anything can't be the thing itself. If this was the case, then God would be what exists; God would be what is created. I'm sure you would agree that this can't be the case, yet the same holds true for the word. God can't be the word; yet the word brings God into existence. It is only in, with and through the word that God exists. The word is being; the ground of being; eternal existence. The word exists "in the beginning". Therefore the word is without beginning or end. The word is eternal, and yet Paul is quite clear in pointing out that although Christ is the means by which all things are created, Christ isn't God. This doesn't negate the fact that Christ is synonymous with the word and therefore eternal.

No, "the first and the last" are not synonymous with Alpha and Omega, and you could see what I mean if you would look at an Interlinear Bible where the Greek is shown along with the English. Since you will not check that out, this conversation is pointless.

Speak for yourself. I've been referring to the Interlinear translation. Your point is pointless. You arent' supporting it with anything.

God existed before the Word existed,

Please document your assertion.

and God can exist very well without anything or anyone else.

Not accoriding to Paul or John as I've already shown repeatedly.

There is nothing in the Scriptures to suggest that "the Word brought God into existence."

I just showed that there is, your protestations to the contrary aren't refuting anything.

Neither is there any suggestion that the Word is eternal.

Correct, it's much more than a suggestion. It's a logical conclusion. The texts nowhere state, "The word had a beginning"; "The word began"; "In the beginning God created the word"; "In the beginning was God".
Instead what we have is "In the beginning was the word" because that's what was in the beginning. There is no time prior to the beginning of time. There is no creation prior to the beginning of creation, therefore there is no other logical conclusion for the word to be anything other than eternal. The word is the means by which everything that is created came into existence, and the means of existence has its source in God. Logically, the source of existence cannot exist as it would then exist itself and must needs have an origin outside of itself. That isn't the case in the texts. They plainly point out that God is the source. God is the origin. There is no infinite regression. The origin of existence can't exist outside of existence. They are both eternal. You can't have one without the other anymore than you can have a son without a father.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 62 by shnarkle]

Shnarkle, we will just have to agree to disagree. Have a pleasant evening.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 51 by onewithhim]

The first and the last can only refer to God.

Isaiah 44:6 New International Version (NIV)
The Lord, Not Idols
6 “This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

Even the NIV uses "LORD" (all caps) not "Lord" as you misquote the NIV. Small point? No, when the OT uses all caps as in "LORD" the reference is to the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, Yahweh, not "Lord" in a more generic sense as in "master".

And because some start with the assumption that Jesus is God, some (including NT writers) apply that verse and reinterpret it to mean "Jesus" is God. But that is not what the original in Isaiah says. The orinignal referred to YHVH alone, not the Messiah.

To project backwards and see Jesus in a verse applied to YHVH is revisionism. Even NT writers can, and do engage in revisionism.

To take a title applied solely to YHVH and apply it to Jesus, then claim "Jesus must be YHVH" is circular logic.

At most, one can say that the NT writer was attempting to say that "Jesus is God" indirectly. And there are a few (not that many) other examples where some NT writers attempted to do this.

But that begs the question, why the indirection? Why not just come out with it, and say simply and plainly, "Jesus is God"? If this is what NT writers believed, what were they afraid of that made them so, shall we say, "subtle"?

After all, the OT writers had no diffuculty in proclaiming simply and plainly that "YHVH (The LORD), he is God" over and over again.

[marco]

How can someone be the first and the last?

Very easily. John was the first English King to use that name and he was the last English king to use that name. One could claim that Christ was the first and the last incarnation of God. Jesus was the first to die for our sins (in theological theory) and the last.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 64 by Elijah John]


"But that begs the question, why the indirection? Why not just come out with it, and say simply and plainly, "Jesus is God"? If this is what NT writers believed, what were they afraid of that made them so, shall we say, "subtle"? "

They had nothing to be afraid of.
They only wrote what they were meant to write. it was not up them,
it was not their wisdom. The Scriptures were inspired (by God).

[dio9]

[Replying to post 66 by Monta]

The first and last to die for our sins makes good sense to me. But don't think it says Jesus is God. more it says Jesus was the Lamb of God. The Gospels tell us Jesus was the Lamb of God.
Do you believe God needed such a sacrifice to appease his sense of justice offended?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 64 by Elijah John]


"But that begs the question, why the indirection? Why not just come out with it, and say simply and plainly, "Jesus is God"? If this is what NT writers believed, what were they afraid of that made them so, shall we say, "subtle"? "

They had nothing to be afraid of.
They only wrote what they were meant to write. it was not up them,
it was not their wisdom. The Scriptures were inspired (by God).

Yes, and God (Jehovah---the Father) inspired Christ's disciples to write down just what was necessary. It was necessary to make clear just what relationship God and Jesus had. It was written clearly that Jesus was/is the Son of God. Over and over this is written. One cannot be God and then one's own Son. Such thinking is toying with lunacy. To insist that Jesus is God and His own Son at the same time is conjuring up an impossible situation that never makes sense, is encouraging the twisting of all reason, making a mockery of God Almighty by saying that He means for us to remain in confused darkness by casting upon us a mystery that we can't understand.

It has always been that "by Jehovah we see light." By Him we gain understanding of the truth.

"O Jehovah, in the heavens is Thy kindness, Thy faithfulness is unto the clouds....For with Thee is a fountain of life, in Thy light we see light." (Psalm 36:5,9, Young's Literal Translation)

"Jehovah is my light and my salvation, whom do I fear? Jehovah is the strength of my life, of whom am I afraid?" (Psalm 27:1, Young's)


According to these Scriptures, would Jehovah keep us in darkness spiritually? Of course he wouldn't. He makes things clear to us in Scripture, and it would be obvious---if men didn't meddle with the verses and twist important truths.

Even if we left the twisted verses alone and let the Trinitarians and others have their way, isn't it quite compelling for the non-trinitarian side that there are HUNDREDS more verses that show clearly that Jesus is NOT God? Even leaving their hijacked verses in, if we weigh them along with the verses that show that Jesus is not God, the scales tip decidedly in the favor of Jesus is not God. We should put them side-by-side and see which verses amount to the most.

Then we could go about the business of showing how we know that the losing verses have been tampered with.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 64 by Elijah John]

Even leaving their hijacked verses in, if we weigh them along with the verses that show that Jesus is not God, the scales tip decidedly in the favor of Jesus is not God. We should put them side-by-side and see which verses amount to the most.

Then we could go about the business of showing how we know that the losing verses have been tampered with.

That should be a pie chart and a new thread.

[marco]

They had nothing to be afraid of.
They only wrote what they were meant to write. it was not up them,
it was not their wisdom. The Scriptures were inspired (by God).

Were this so there would be no debate, since all ambiguity would be inspirationally removed. But of course there are many areas much argued over, not to mention those areas that tell us to do ghastly things to sinners; areas which, thankfully, common sense now ignores.


Wouldn't it be ecumenically wonderful if we knew exactly what was meant by the famous words: "Do this in commemoration of me" ? (Luke 22:19)