John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?
- Thread starter Rich R
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
"Please humbly admit that there is not one single verse in all 66 books of Scripture that says the one God exists in three persons."
Okay, very humbly:
I humbly proclaim that Moses does so in Genesis 1, which John is pulling us back to in John 1.
And I humbly proclaim that Jesus clearly presents the triune Jehovah in John 14.
So, three distinct Persons, one triune God. To Him alone be the glory.
Grace and peace to all.
I humbly proclaim that Moses does so in Genesis 1, which John is pulling us back to in John 1.
Moses quotes God as saying, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," so clearly God is a plurality ~ more than one distinct person. And clearly, the Holy Spirit is present at Creation, hovering above the waters (Genesis 1:2). John completes the picture by saying that the Word, Who he later names as the Person of Jesus in saying, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth... For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
And I humbly proclaim that Jesus clearly presents the triune Jehovah in John 14.
At the very least, we have to humbly admit that Jesus and the Helper (the Holy Spirit) are two separate and distinct persons, Jesus of course, as nobody disputes that, but also the Holy Spirit, Who Jesus refers to as "He" and clearly another person, and equal in power and glory to Himself, as we see in the following:
a) both Christ and the Holy Spirit are sent by the Father (Jesus, John 4:24; the Holy Spirit, John 14:26)
b) the word "another" (John 14:16), thereby saying that He is equal in power and glory with the first One sent, Who is Jesus Himself
c) that the Holy Spirit is sent in the name of Christ and teaches us and brings to our remembrance all that Christ has said (John 14:26)
But further, the Son and the Holy Spirit are clearly equal in power and glory with the Father because:b) the word "another" (John 14:16), thereby saying that He is equal in power and glory with the first One sent, Who is Jesus Himself
c) that the Holy Spirit is sent in the name of Christ and teaches us and brings to our remembrance all that Christ has said (John 14:26)
a) the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, as Jesus says (John 14:10, John 14:11)
b) the Father is glorified in the Son (John 14:13)
b) both the Son and the Holy Spirit are in succession sent by the Father (Jesus, John 4:24; the Holy Spirit, John 14:26)
b) the Father is glorified in the Son (John 14:13)
b) both the Son and the Holy Spirit are in succession sent by the Father (Jesus, John 4:24; the Holy Spirit, John 14:26)
So, three distinct Persons, one triune God. To Him alone be the glory.
Grace and peace to all.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not only is this the opposite of clear (who God is talking to is unstated), this passage does not address the fact that there is not one single verse in all 66 books of Scripture that says the one God exists in three persons.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
PinSeeker #842 above:
At the very least, we have to humbly admit that Jesus and the Helper (the Holy Spirit) are two separate and distinct persons, Jesus of course, as nobody disputes that, but also the Holy Spirit, Who Jesus refers to as "He" and clearly another person, and equal in power and glory to Himself, as we see in the following:
a) both Christ and the Holy Spirit are sent by the Father (Jesus, John 4:24; the Holy Spirit, John 14:26)
b) the word "another" (John 14:16), thereby saying that He is equal in power and glory with the first One sent, Who is Jesus Himself
c) that the Holy Spirit is sent in the name of Christ and teaches us and brings to our remembrance all that Christ has said (John 14:26)
.......................................................
Jesus does not refer to the HS as "he" in John 14:17 because the pronoun must use the same gender as its antecedent ("spirit" here). Since "spirit" is neuter in Greek (feminine in Hebrew), the NT Greek text has "which," and "it" for the pronouns. In John 14:26 the antecedent is the masculine paraclete ("helper"), so, the pronoun must be masculine as well.
b. "another" does not mean, "He is equal in power and glory with the first One sent, Who is Jesus Himself."
At the very least, we have to humbly admit that Jesus and the Helper (the Holy Spirit) are two separate and distinct persons, Jesus of course, as nobody disputes that, but also the Holy Spirit, Who Jesus refers to as "He" and clearly another person, and equal in power and glory to Himself, as we see in the following:
a) both Christ and the Holy Spirit are sent by the Father (Jesus, John 4:24; the Holy Spirit, John 14:26)
b) the word "another" (John 14:16), thereby saying that He is equal in power and glory with the first One sent, Who is Jesus Himself
c) that the Holy Spirit is sent in the name of Christ and teaches us and brings to our remembrance all that Christ has said (John 14:26)
.......................................................
Jesus does not refer to the HS as "he" in John 14:17 because the pronoun must use the same gender as its antecedent ("spirit" here). Since "spirit" is neuter in Greek (feminine in Hebrew), the NT Greek text has "which," and "it" for the pronouns. In John 14:26 the antecedent is the masculine paraclete ("helper"), so, the pronoun must be masculine as well.
b. "another" does not mean, "He is equal in power and glory with the first One sent, Who is Jesus Himself."
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
p. 269, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1976, admits: “In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine active power ...”
And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136, 1137, says:
“Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times.” And “Divine power, where ruah is used to describe...a supernatural force....” And “At its [the Old Testament’s concept of God’s spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy.” And “at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God’s ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God’s authority) exerting force in some direction.”
The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:
“The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality.” And “Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated [381 A.D.].” Also, “It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein.” - v. 14, p. 326, 1957.
And Britannica agrees:
“The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated ‘spirit’) is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard....“The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381....” - Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985, v. 6, p. 22.
Yes, not only did God’s people, as described in the OT, believe the holy spirit was an active force and not a person, but that same belief prevailed from the time of the NT writers up until at least 325 A. D. when the Roman Church officially accepted and began promoting its new doctrine. To bolster this NEW doctrine they went to the NT to find “proof.” That vague, ambiguous “proof” is what we will investigate in this study.
Many historians and Bible scholars (many of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example:
“On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
“The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 575, Vol. 13, 1967.
“It is important to realize that for the first Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divine power.” - New Bible Dictionary, p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.
“The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power...could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power” - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.
“The true divinity of the third person [the holy spirit] was asserted...finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381 A. D.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
Yes, the Council of Constantinople (381 A. D.) first officially decreed “the personality of the Holy Spirit”. - Cairns, pp. 142, 145; also see Encyclopedia Britannica, v. 6, p. 22, 1985 ed.
Famed trinitarian Church historian Neander notes in History of Christian Dogma:
“Though Basil of Caesarea wished to teach the divinity [deity] of the holy spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it gradually.”
[Basil of Caesarea was a famed late 4th century trinitarian bishop - one of the ‘Three Cappadocians’ who were instrumental in further developing the trinity doctrine to the final form adopted at the council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 794; and p. 237, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1990 printing]
There was a very good reason for the reluctance of the early Christians to accept this new doctrine of the Spirit:
“In the N[ew] T[estament] there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity. The spirit is conceived as an IMPERSONAL POWER by which God effects his will through Christ.” - An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.
In fact, Gregory of Nazianzus (another of the ‘Three Cappadocians’ whom trinitarian historian Lohse praises as being essential to the final defeat of the Arians at the Council of Constantinople),
“declared that it was the destiny of his time [381 A. D.] to bring to full clarity the mystery which in the New Testament was only dimly intimated.” - p. 64, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985.
Trinitarian Gregory also admitted,
“But of the wise men amongst ourselves [Christians], some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also.” - “The Fifth Theological Oration,” section 5 (page 616, Vol. 7, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, The Master Christian Library, Version 5 (software).
And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136, 1137, says:
“Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times.” And “Divine power, where ruah is used to describe...a supernatural force....” And “At its [the Old Testament’s concept of God’s spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy.” And “at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God’s ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God’s authority) exerting force in some direction.”
The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:
“The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality.” And “Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated [381 A.D.].” Also, “It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein.” - v. 14, p. 326, 1957.
And Britannica agrees:
“The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated ‘spirit’) is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard....“The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381....” - Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985, v. 6, p. 22.
Yes, not only did God’s people, as described in the OT, believe the holy spirit was an active force and not a person, but that same belief prevailed from the time of the NT writers up until at least 325 A. D. when the Roman Church officially accepted and began promoting its new doctrine. To bolster this NEW doctrine they went to the NT to find “proof.” That vague, ambiguous “proof” is what we will investigate in this study.
Many historians and Bible scholars (many of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example:
“On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
“The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 575, Vol. 13, 1967.
“It is important to realize that for the first Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divine power.” - New Bible Dictionary, p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.
“The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power...could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power” - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.
“The true divinity of the third person [the holy spirit] was asserted...finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381 A. D.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
Yes, the Council of Constantinople (381 A. D.) first officially decreed “the personality of the Holy Spirit”. - Cairns, pp. 142, 145; also see Encyclopedia Britannica, v. 6, p. 22, 1985 ed.
Famed trinitarian Church historian Neander notes in History of Christian Dogma:
“Though Basil of Caesarea wished to teach the divinity [deity] of the holy spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it gradually.”
[Basil of Caesarea was a famed late 4th century trinitarian bishop - one of the ‘Three Cappadocians’ who were instrumental in further developing the trinity doctrine to the final form adopted at the council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 794; and p. 237, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1990 printing]
There was a very good reason for the reluctance of the early Christians to accept this new doctrine of the Spirit:
“In the N[ew] T[estament] there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity. The spirit is conceived as an IMPERSONAL POWER by which God effects his will through Christ.” - An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.
In fact, Gregory of Nazianzus (another of the ‘Three Cappadocians’ whom trinitarian historian Lohse praises as being essential to the final defeat of the Arians at the Council of Constantinople),
“declared that it was the destiny of his time [381 A. D.] to bring to full clarity the mystery which in the New Testament was only dimly intimated.” - p. 64, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985.
Trinitarian Gregory also admitted,
“But of the wise men amongst ourselves [Christians], some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also.” - “The Fifth Theological Oration,” section 5 (page 616, Vol. 7, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, The Master Christian Library, Version 5 (software).
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
#822, RLT63 wrote: “As in Revelation 1:17 and 18 Jesus says he is the first and the last”
...............................
"Alpha and Omega" appears to be a title for God. "first and last," however, is a phrase which means "only" in some sense. Notice that it is not capitalized in KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV as a title for God normally is.
So, in what sense does it mean "only" in Rev. 1:17? Well simply read 1:17-18. Isn't it clear?
...............................
"Alpha and Omega" appears to be a title for God. "first and last," however, is a phrase which means "only" in some sense. Notice that it is not capitalized in KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB, RSV, NRSV as a title for God normally is.
So, in what sense does it mean "only" in Rev. 1:17? Well simply read 1:17-18. Isn't it clear?
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Jesus Testifies to the Churches
Rev 22:12
¶
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.
Rev 22:13
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11
saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and,Rev 1:12
¶
Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands,
Rev 1:13
and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
RLT63 wrote: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11
saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and,Rev 1:12
..............................................
There are only three places in the entire Bible where the title “Alpha and Omega” is used: Rev. 1:8; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:13. “Alpha and Omega” as found at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and NKJV is recognized as spurious by most knowledgeable modern Bible scholars.
Virtually all modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:
"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,”
This wording at the beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in virtually any NT Greek texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.
There are only three pre-ninth century Greek MSS which attest to this passage [Rev. 1:11], and all three of them omit the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." In addition, many later MSS and versions also omit. Hodges & Farstad's "Majority" text omits, and Robinson & Pierpont's "Byzantine/Majority" text omits. Thus whether one bases one's text largely on pre-ninth century MSS, or whether one bases one's text on the Majority of Greek MSS, either way, this phrase should be omitted.
......................................................
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Revelation 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and--The oldest manuscripts, omit all this clause. - http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/revelation/revelation-1.html
.......................................................
The Adam Clarke Commentary
Revelation 1
Verse 11." I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and
"This whole clause is wanting in ABC [א, A, C], thirty-one others; some editions; the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Arethas, Andreas, and Primasius. Griesbach has left it out of the text." -
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=65&ch=1
The truth of the above can be observed by merely examining most Greek NT texts, most Trinitarian Bible translations, or most ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT.
Rev 1:11
saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and,Rev 1:12
..............................................
There are only three places in the entire Bible where the title “Alpha and Omega” is used: Rev. 1:8; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:13. “Alpha and Omega” as found at Rev. 1:11 in the KJV and NKJV is recognized as spurious by most knowledgeable modern Bible scholars.
Virtually all modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:
"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,”
This wording at the beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in virtually any NT Greek texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.
There are only three pre-ninth century Greek MSS which attest to this passage [Rev. 1:11], and all three of them omit the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." In addition, many later MSS and versions also omit. Hodges & Farstad's "Majority" text omits, and Robinson & Pierpont's "Byzantine/Majority" text omits. Thus whether one bases one's text largely on pre-ninth century MSS, or whether one bases one's text on the Majority of Greek MSS, either way, this phrase should be omitted.
......................................................
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Revelation 1:11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and--The oldest manuscripts, omit all this clause. - http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/revelation/revelation-1.html
.......................................................
The Adam Clarke Commentary
Revelation 1
Verse 11." I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and
"This whole clause is wanting in ABC [א, A, C], thirty-one others; some editions; the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Arethas, Andreas, and Primasius. Griesbach has left it out of the text." -
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=65&ch=1
The truth of the above can be observed by merely examining most Greek NT texts, most Trinitarian Bible translations, or most ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
RLT63 wrote: "Jesus Testifies to the Churches
Rev 22:12
¶
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.
Rev 22:13
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."
.................................................
Is Jesus ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 22?
John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in verse 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in verse 10). The angel may be still speaking in 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB,1970 ed.).
Now is the angel still speaking in 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It’s entirely a matter of translator’s choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.
However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millenium Bible, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).
Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other respected trinitarian translations do not!
The RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV show (by quotation marks and indenting) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words.
(The Jerusalem Bible and the NJB show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.) Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.
So, if you insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV, you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)
And, just as the use of “I, John” indicated a new speaker in Revelation 1:9, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - “I, Jesus” also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement (“I am the Alpha and Omega”) was made by someone else!
Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word “his” in verse 14 that they didn’t mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing “His Commandments” (not “My Commandments”)! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text, e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; MKJV; Young’s Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa’s translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses “him.“
So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.
The only other use of the title “Alpha and Omega” confirms this understanding.
“And He who sits on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ .... And He said to me, ‘It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. .... He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.’” - Rev. 21:5-7, NASB.
“Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as ‘sons of God [the Father].’ (Gal. 3:26; 4:6).” - pp. 412-413, Reasoning from the Scriptures, WBTS, 1985.
So Rev. 21:6, 7 confirms the understanding that the Alpha and Omega is the Father, not Jesus.
In short, there is no reason, other than a desire to support the trinity tradition, to believe that Jesus is being called “Alpha and Omega” in Rev. 22. And there is good evidence to believe that it is his Father only who uses this title for himself.
Rev 22:12
¶
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.
Rev 22:13
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."
.................................................
Is Jesus ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 22?
John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in verse 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in verse 10). The angel may be still speaking in 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB,1970 ed.).
Now is the angel still speaking in 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It’s entirely a matter of translator’s choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.
However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millenium Bible, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).
Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other respected trinitarian translations do not!
The RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV show (by quotation marks and indenting) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words.
(The Jerusalem Bible and the NJB show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.) Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.
So, if you insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ESV, ISV, NLT, 21st Century King James Version, Third Millennium Bible, and TEV, you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)
And, just as the use of “I, John” indicated a new speaker in Revelation 1:9, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - “I, Jesus” also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement (“I am the Alpha and Omega”) was made by someone else!
Even the KJV translators have shown by their use of the word “his” in verse 14 that they didn’t mean that Jesus was the same speaker as the Alpha and Omega. The speaker of verse 13 is Almighty God. The comment in verse 14 of these Bibles (as literally translated from the Received Text) explains the importance of doing “His Commandments” (not “My Commandments”)! Therefore the speaker of verse 14 is obviously not God as clearly stated by those Bibles which were translated from the Received Text, e.g., KJV; NKJV; KJIIV; MKJV; Young’s Literal Translation; Webster Bible (by Noah Webster); and Revised Webster Bible. Lamsa’s translation (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) also uses “him.“
So we can easily see that there is no reason to say Jesus spoke the words recorded at Rev. 22:13 (or the above-named trinitarian Bibles would surely have so translated it!) and, in fact, the context really identifies the speaker as being the same person who spoke at Rev. 1:8, God Almighty, Jehovah, the Father.
The only other use of the title “Alpha and Omega” confirms this understanding.
“And He who sits on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ .... And He said to me, ‘It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. .... He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.’” - Rev. 21:5-7, NASB.
“Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as ‘sons of God [the Father].’ (Gal. 3:26; 4:6).” - pp. 412-413, Reasoning from the Scriptures, WBTS, 1985.
So Rev. 21:6, 7 confirms the understanding that the Alpha and Omega is the Father, not Jesus.
In short, there is no reason, other than a desire to support the trinity tradition, to believe that Jesus is being called “Alpha and Omega” in Rev. 22. And there is good evidence to believe that it is his Father only who uses this title for himself.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
.............................................
That's the Christian spirit! Attack the person rather than the words he writes. Attack all those trinitarian sources he cites or quotes.
If the part about quotation marks is confusing, all you have to do is ask me.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I didn't say anything about you as a person. I don't know anything about you. Many of the views expressed here seem to be outside of mainstream Christianity. You can find sources to support any view. You have certainly researched the issue.
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
To not understand that at least one Person the Father is speaking to as the Holy Spirit, Who is mentioned as present before and during Creation, specifically in Genesis 1:2, is willful ignorance.
As the first 31 verses of the entire Bible ~ and the prologue, in a sense ~ it is precipitated and understood throughout. God never changes; He always was, and always will be, because He is.
According to the writers of the heretical New World Translation. Yes, He certainly does:
"...even the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:17; the Holy Spirit is referred to by Jesus first by name/title, and then, respectively, Whom, Him, Him, Him, and He, and is attributed specific personal functions/actions).
Likewise:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26, the Helper, the Holy Spirit, is referred to, again by Jesus, respectively, as Whom and He, and is attributed specific personal functions/actions).
All part of the deception...
With all due respect, tigger, just saying so means nothing, much less does it just make it so. You are surely welcome to your opinion (as if it were up to me to grant it or not). Ah, you will say the same back to me; so be it.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I apologize. I was repeating something that was said to me. It was not in good taste or the spirit of debate
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
PinSeeker #855:
↑
Jesus does not refer to the HS as "he" in John 14:17...
According to the writers of the heretical New World Translation. Yes, He certainly does:
"...even the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:17; the Holy Spirit is referred to by Jesus first by name/title, and then, respectively, Whom, Him, Him, Him, and He, and is attributed specific personal functions/actions).
Likewise:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26, the Helper, the Holy Spirit, is referred to, again by Jesus, respectively, as Whom and He, and is attributed specific personal functions/actions).
↑
its because the pronoun must use the same gender as its antecedent ("spirit" here). Since "spirit" is neuter in Greek (feminine in Hebrew), the NT Greek text has "which," and "it" for the pronouns. In John 14:26 the antecedent is the masculine paraclete ("helper"), so, the pronoun must be masculine as well.
All part of the deception...
..................................................
First, you are very mistaken (or are just lying) about your quote of John 14:17 from the NWT. It properly uses what the Greek itself says "which," and "it." If you cannot admit the truth of this, you are not worth talking to.
John 14 — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org) - NWT
Scripture4All Interlinear: John 14 for 14:17 in trinitarian interlinear.
Second, I do not deceive. Any beginning student of NT Greek will tell you what I have written about pronouns and their antecedents is pure truth.
↑
Jesus does not refer to the HS as "he" in John 14:17...
According to the writers of the heretical New World Translation. Yes, He certainly does:
"...even the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:17; the Holy Spirit is referred to by Jesus first by name/title, and then, respectively, Whom, Him, Him, Him, and He, and is attributed specific personal functions/actions).
Likewise:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26, the Helper, the Holy Spirit, is referred to, again by Jesus, respectively, as Whom and He, and is attributed specific personal functions/actions).
↑
its because the pronoun must use the same gender as its antecedent ("spirit" here). Since "spirit" is neuter in Greek (feminine in Hebrew), the NT Greek text has "which," and "it" for the pronouns. In John 14:26 the antecedent is the masculine paraclete ("helper"), so, the pronoun must be masculine as well.
All part of the deception...
..................................................
First, you are very mistaken (or are just lying) about your quote of John 14:17 from the NWT. It properly uses what the Greek itself says "which," and "it." If you cannot admit the truth of this, you are not worth talking to.
John 14 — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org) - NWT
Scripture4All Interlinear: John 14 for 14:17 in trinitarian interlinear.
Second, I do not deceive. Any beginning student of NT Greek will tell you what I have written about pronouns and their antecedents is pure truth.
Last edited:
RLT63
Well-Known Member
@Rich R, @Wrangler, @APAK, @tigger 2, @Peterlag and to all unitarians,
Did Jesus ever claim to be God? That is the question. That is the bottom line. People say to us from time to time, “I know you say He was God, but did He ever claim to be God?” They have a sneaking suspicion that the reason we declare Him to be God is because we need Him to be God. If He is not God, then He is just one of many on the
plane of world religions, and Christianity has lost its dominant role in the world. “You want Him to be God,” our challengers say, “and therefore you read your conclusions into your presupposition, and you start from there.”
What do we say in response to that? First, we have to examine the evidence in the Bible. We have to answer the question, “Does Jesus claim to be God?”
In the Bible, Jesus makes direct claims, and He also makes indirect claims. We’ll start with the indirect claims. First, Jesus made staggering claims about His ability to meet the spiritual needs of others. In the gospel of John there is a great succession of “I am” statements made by Jesus. “I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in darkness.” “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door.” “I am the good shepherd.” “I am the resurrection and the life.” “I am the way, the truth and the life,” and so on.
Why are these “I am” statements significant? Because when Jesus makes each of these statements, He is claiming that He and He alone could meet every individual’s need for forgiveness, peace, security, and direction. And He alone could bring them into a living, eternal relationship with God. He is not simply making interesting statements. He is actually affirming certain convictions about who He is. “Follow Me,” He says, “and you’ll never walk in darkness.” “Eat he bread of life and you’ll never hunger again.” “Follow Me, walk with Me, and I’ll take you directly into heaven.”
It is difficult to imagine how anyone in his right mind could make even one of these claims without believing himself to be God. Imagine a man walking onto the stage of human history and saying, “I am the way, the truth, the life. Nobody comes to God the Father but through me.” That man is either a bad man telling lies, or a madman totally deluded or he is the God-man. He is actually who he claims to be. We need to be able to engage our friends at this level of dialogue. We can say to them, “I know you’ve got a problem with this idea of Jesus being divine, but look at what He said. He’s either a liar, a madman, or God. Do you think He’s a liar?” “No,” they’ll probably say. “Do you think He’s crazy?” They might say, “No, I don’t think so. He healed people and welcomed
them and talked with them. I don’t think he was crazy.” “Well, then, who do you think He is?” The standard answer is, “I think he was just a good man.” How can you have a good man who tells lies like this? He did not leave us the option of being a
good man. He was either who He said He was, or a lunatic or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.” The evidence in the Bible is that Jesus made staggering statements and claims concerning how He alone could address the spiritual needs of others.
Secondly, He made astonishing claims about His teachings. In Matthew 5:18 during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any
means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Jesus was here affirming the authenticity of the Old Testament. He was saying what others would say of the Scriptures—they are from God, they are factual, they cannot be
tampered with. Then in Matthew 24:35, He says the same thing about His own words: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” He was claiming that His words were like the Old Testament words. “The words that I
speak are the very words of God. They will never, ever pass away.” Two thousand years later, we are studying the very words of Jesus, which He said will never pass away, despite the fact that centuries have tried to grind into the dust of oblivion the very truth of the Scriptures. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus also takes false interpretations of the Old Testament and corrects them. He says, "You have heard that it was said to the
people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to
judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject
to judgment." (Matthew 5:21–22a) "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her
in his heart." (vv. 27–28) "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces
his wife, ...’ But I tell you, ... (vv. 31–32). "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love
your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you... (vv. 43–44)
And on and on.
What is the point here? If someone else were to
take the Bible and say, “You’ve heard what the Bible tells you to do, but I’m telling you to do this other,” we’d be saying back, “Who in the world do you think you are?” What was Jesus doing? He was clearly making astonishing claims about His
teaching. He was putting His teaching on a par with the rest of biblical instruction.
continue
Did Jesus ever claim to be God? That is the question. That is the bottom line. People say to us from time to time, “I know you say He was God, but did He ever claim to be God?” They have a sneaking suspicion that the reason we declare Him to be God is because we need Him to be God. If He is not God, then He is just one of many on the
plane of world religions, and Christianity has lost its dominant role in the world. “You want Him to be God,” our challengers say, “and therefore you read your conclusions into your presupposition, and you start from there.”
What do we say in response to that? First, we have to examine the evidence in the Bible. We have to answer the question, “Does Jesus claim to be God?”
In the Bible, Jesus makes direct claims, and He also makes indirect claims. We’ll start with the indirect claims. First, Jesus made staggering claims about His ability to meet the spiritual needs of others. In the gospel of John there is a great succession of “I am” statements made by Jesus. “I am the light of the world. He who follows me will not walk in darkness.” “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door.” “I am the good shepherd.” “I am the resurrection and the life.” “I am the way, the truth and the life,” and so on.
Why are these “I am” statements significant? Because when Jesus makes each of these statements, He is claiming that He and He alone could meet every individual’s need for forgiveness, peace, security, and direction. And He alone could bring them into a living, eternal relationship with God. He is not simply making interesting statements. He is actually affirming certain convictions about who He is. “Follow Me,” He says, “and you’ll never walk in darkness.” “Eat he bread of life and you’ll never hunger again.” “Follow Me, walk with Me, and I’ll take you directly into heaven.”
It is difficult to imagine how anyone in his right mind could make even one of these claims without believing himself to be God. Imagine a man walking onto the stage of human history and saying, “I am the way, the truth, the life. Nobody comes to God the Father but through me.” That man is either a bad man telling lies, or a madman totally deluded or he is the God-man. He is actually who he claims to be. We need to be able to engage our friends at this level of dialogue. We can say to them, “I know you’ve got a problem with this idea of Jesus being divine, but look at what He said. He’s either a liar, a madman, or God. Do you think He’s a liar?” “No,” they’ll probably say. “Do you think He’s crazy?” They might say, “No, I don’t think so. He healed people and welcomed
them and talked with them. I don’t think he was crazy.” “Well, then, who do you think He is?” The standard answer is, “I think he was just a good man.” How can you have a good man who tells lies like this? He did not leave us the option of being a
good man. He was either who He said He was, or a lunatic or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.” The evidence in the Bible is that Jesus made staggering statements and claims concerning how He alone could address the spiritual needs of others.
Secondly, He made astonishing claims about His teachings. In Matthew 5:18 during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any
means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Jesus was here affirming the authenticity of the Old Testament. He was saying what others would say of the Scriptures—they are from God, they are factual, they cannot be
tampered with. Then in Matthew 24:35, He says the same thing about His own words: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” He was claiming that His words were like the Old Testament words. “The words that I
speak are the very words of God. They will never, ever pass away.” Two thousand years later, we are studying the very words of Jesus, which He said will never pass away, despite the fact that centuries have tried to grind into the dust of oblivion the very truth of the Scriptures. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus also takes false interpretations of the Old Testament and corrects them. He says, "You have heard that it was said to the
people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to
judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject
to judgment." (Matthew 5:21–22a) "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her
in his heart." (vv. 27–28) "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces
his wife, ...’ But I tell you, ... (vv. 31–32). "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love
your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you... (vv. 43–44)
And on and on.
What is the point here? If someone else were to
take the Bible and say, “You’ve heard what the Bible tells you to do, but I’m telling you to do this other,” we’d be saying back, “Who in the world do you think you are?” What was Jesus doing? He was clearly making astonishing claims about His
teaching. He was putting His teaching on a par with the rest of biblical instruction.
continue
Last edited:
About what? Jesus didn't say the Pharisees were following tradition? The Pharisees were not the religious leaders? Peter does not say Christians share in the divine nature? Corinthians and John do not say only the Father is God? The orthodox church is somehow immune to following tradition?
I think that's about all I said, so in which part am I sadly mistaken?
- Status
Similar threads
