- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,14:55) Quote (Lightenup @ June 17 2009,06:27) Quote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,11:22) Nick said: Quote Hi TT,
Indeed Jesus is the first and the last Son of God.Nick,
Your comment is the most blatant Scripture twisting I have seen in a while.thinker
Hi Thinker,
I agree with Nick here, if someone is unique, a one of a kind in other words then they are the first and the last of that kind.
There is only one Most High GOD
and only one Son of the Most High GOD and Him being the son of GOD, would by nature also be God, but by age, would not be the Most High GOD.An actual son of GOD would share the nature of his father, not his age.
An actual son of man would share the nature of his father, not his age.
So the Son by nature is God but because He is from another, He could not be the Most High GOD.With that in mind these “First and Last” statements make sense.
Blessings,
Kathi
Kathi,
All you say is invalid inference and you cannot demonstrate from the context that the expression “the First and the Last” means the “First and the Last Son.” Give me some contextual basis and we will take it from there. Christ is called the “Word of God” in the Revelation. So how do you know it doesn't mean “I am the First and the Last Word?” How do you know He is not saying “I am the First and the last Lamb?”You know that your view is polytheistic. Polytheism taught the the gods ruled as a hierarchy. According to you there is the “most high” God and then Jesus the lesser “god.” There is little difference between your view and polytheism.
thinker
Hi Thinker,
Don't miss my point which was that the Son could be referred to as the “First and the Last” in a different way than the Father could be referred to as the “First and the Last.” Whether it refers to Him as the first and last Lamb of GOD that takes away the sins of the world, or the first and last Son of GOD, both of those expressions say that He is “of” GOD and not GOD Himself. We can tell from context in one of the first and last references that whoever it is speaking of, died, so we have no problem seeing Him as the Son of GOD, Jesus.Does it say anywhere that Jesus is the only word of GOD? The sword of the Spirit is called the word of God, the prophets proclaimed the word of God. So, I don't see Jesus as the ONLY word of GOD and so I don't think that it would be correct to say that He is the First and the Last word of GOD. That is besides the point though.
The term “First and the Last” can be applied to anything unique as in an only one of its type.
The Most High GOD is a one of a kind
the Son of the Most High GOD is also a one of a kind.Blessings,
KathiQuote (thethinker @ June 17 2009,05:50) Paladin said: Quote [/quote] NEW SENTENCE]
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith THE LORD, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY.Jesus was called Gibbowr El, not Shaddai El. [“Mighty God, NOT ALMIGHTY GOD][Isa 9:6]
When Jesus was raised from the dead, he put off mortality and put on oikeerteerion; the same oikeeteerion which the angels of Gen 6 abandoned to become mortal, so they could cohabit with women.
Resurrected Jesus is called “Elohiym” and “Adown” and El, all of which are originally applied to God, whether as names or titles, but Abraham was called Elohiym during his lifetime, Samuel was called Elohiym AFTER HE DIED, and men are called Elohiym to whom the word of God came.
David called Jesus “Lord” but he, being a prophet, saw the resurrected Christ. It all points to a new type of creation, one who is raised from the dead creatures from the earlier creation. Jesus is the first of a new kind of creature.
In every reference to Alpha, Omega, and “first and last” is it God who speaks, not Jesus.
Greetings Paladin,
You destroyed your whole argument by your closing statement which was this,Quote In every reference to Alpha, Omega, and “first and last” is it God who speaks, not Jesus. There are two passages you overlooked,
1. You overlooked verses 17b-18a,
Quote I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives and was dead, and behold I am alive forevermore. The One who calls Himself the First and the Last says also that He was dead. It is clearly Jesus who is speaking. The Father didn't die. Therefore, verse 8 must also be Jesus speaking. There is no doubt at all that it is Jesus speaking in vss. 17-18. In Isaiah 44:6 YHWH said that He was the First and the Last. He called Himself Israel's goel which means blood relative-redeemer. The Father was not Israel's blood relative.
2. You overlooked 22:12,
Quote And behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the last Note verse 20,
Quote Surely I am coming quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus The One who is “coming quickly” is the First and the Last and is Jesus according to vs. 20.
your friend,
thinker
You are correct, I mis-spoke.I have more homework to do.
Thanks!
Lightenup said:
Quote Hi Thinker,
Don't miss my point which was that the Son could be referred to as the “First and the Last” in a different way than the Father could be referred to as the “First and the Last.” Whether it refers to Him as the first and last Lamb of GOD that takes away the sins of the world, or the first and last Son of GOD, both of those expressions say that He is “of” GOD and not GOD Himself. We can tell from context in one of the first and last references that whoever it is speaking of, died, so we have no problem seeing Him as the Son of GOD, Jesus.Hi Kathi,
You certainly have one of the more creative imaginations I have ever encountered. Jesus meant simply that He is the Eternal One and that death itself could not change that. This is the natural reading and I do not infer into that anything more.Lightenup said:
Quote The term “First and the Last” can be applied to anything unique as in an only one of its type. No! It means that the one who is the First and the Last is the Lord of history and that death could not prevent Him.
thinker
Hi TT,
So you choose an absolute understanding or first and last?
There are other possibilities so keep an open mind.Jesus was given to have that eternal life in Himself and became for us the source of that life from God in him.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2009,10:53) Hi TT,
So you choose an absolute understanding or first and last?
There are other possibilities so keep an open mind.Jesus was given to have that eternal life in Himself and became for us the source of that life from God in him.
Nick,
Your view that Jesus is the First and the last Son is inferred. And you say that inference has no place with the sacred. Therefore, by your own rule you must reject your own inference.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,18:41) Lightenup said: Quote Hi Thinker,
Don't miss my point which was that the Son could be referred to as the “First and the Last” in a different way than the Father could be referred to as the “First and the Last.” Whether it refers to Him as the first and last Lamb of GOD that takes away the sins of the world, or the first and last Son of GOD, both of those expressions say that He is “of” GOD and not GOD Himself. We can tell from context in one of the first and last references that whoever it is speaking of, died, so we have no problem seeing Him as the Son of GOD, Jesus.Hi Kathi,
You certainly have one of the more creative imaginations I have ever encountered. Jesus meant simply that He is the Eternal One and that death itself could not change that. This is the natural reading and I do not infer into that anything more.Lightenup said:
Quote The term “First and the Last” can be applied to anything unique as in an only one of its type. No! It means that the one who is the First and the Last is the Lord of history and that death could not prevent Him.
thinker
Thinker,
You have arrived at a theory of what that means. Nothing more than a theory. You will not see the word “history” or “eternal one” in the context. Isn't the message merely that He is the first and last at something which is not disclosed in this context and therefore not necessary to pin down.Kathi
Lightenup said:
Quote Thinker,
You have arrived at a theory of what that means. Nothing more than a theory. You will not see the word “history” or “eternal one” in the context. Isn't the message merely that He is the first and last at something which is not disclosed in this context and therefore not necessary to pin down.Kathi,
Please explain Isaiah 44:6 where YHWH claims that He is Israel's “goel”, that is, Israel's blood relative-redeemer. Then YHWH said , “I am the First and the Last.” The Father was not Israel's blood relative-redeemer. It was Jesus who became of the seed of David and redeemed Israel.btw, the expression “the First and the last” does mean the Eternal One,
Quote I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty…. …I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last…. (vss. 8 & 11a)
Premise 1: Alpha and Omega means “the Beginning and the End” and “the One Who was and Who is and Who is to come (vs.8).
Premise 2: Alpha and Omega also means the “First and the Last (vs. 11a)
Conclusion: The First and the last means “the Alpha and the Omega”, and “the Beginning and the End” and “the One Who was and Who is and Who is to come.”
To put it simply it means the Eternal One. A little reading without presuposition is all that is needed to comprehend this. You said that my definition is “nothing more than a theory.”
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 17 2009,13:48) Lightenup said: Quote Thinker,
You have arrived at a theory of what that means. Nothing more than a theory. You will not see the word “history” or “eternal one” in the context. Isn't the message merely that He is the first and last at something which is not disclosed in this context and therefore not necessary to pin down.Kathi,
Please explain Isaiah 44:6 where YHWH claims that He is Israel's “goel”, that is, Israel's blood relative-redeemer. Then YHWH said , “I am the First and the Last.” The Father was not Israel's blood relative-redeemer. It was Jesus who became of the seed of David and redeemed Israel.btw, the expression “the First and the last” does mean the Eternal One,
Quote I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty…. …I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last…. (vss. 8 & 11a)
Premise 1: Alpha and Omega means “the Beginning and the End” and “the One Who was and Who is and Who is to come (vs.8).
Premise 2: Alpha and Omega also means the “First and the Last (vs. 11a)
Conclusion: The First and the last means “the Alpha and the Omega”, and “the Beginning and the End” and “the One Who was and Who is and Who is to come.”
To put it simply it means the Eternal One. A little reading without presuposition is all that is needed to comprehend this. You said that my definition is “nothing more than a theory.”
thinker
Hi thethinker:God delivered Israel out of Egyptian bondage to Pharoah, and so that is what He means by being their redeemer.
The following according to Strong's:
Quote Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to redeem, act as kinsman-redeemer, avenge, revenge, ransom, do the part of a kinsman a) (Qal)
1) to act as kinsman, do the part of next of kin, act as kinsman-redeemer
a) by marrying brother's widow to beget a child for him, to redeem from slavery, to redeem land, to exact vengeance
2) to redeem (by payment)
3) to redeem (with God as subject)
a) individuals from death
b) Israel from Egyptian bondage
c) Israel from exile
b) (Niphal)
1) to redeem oneself
2) to be redeemed
b) ISRAEL FROM EGYPTIAN BONDAGE
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,21:48) Lightenup said: Quote Thinker,
You have arrived at a theory of what that means. Nothing more than a theory. You will not see the word “history” or “eternal one” in the context. Isn't the message merely that He is the first and last at something which is not disclosed in this context and therefore not necessary to pin down.Kathi,
Please explain Isaiah 44:6 where YHWH claims that He is Israel's “goel”, that is, Israel's blood relative-redeemer. Then YHWH said , “I am the First and the Last.” The Father was not Israel's blood relative-redeemer. It was Jesus who became of the seed of David and redeemed Israel.btw, the expression “the First and the last” does mean the Eternal One,
Quote I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the End, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty…. …I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last…. (vss. 8 & 11a)
Premise 1: Alpha and Omega means “the Beginning and the End” and “the One Who was and Who is and Who is to come (vs.8).
Premise 2: Alpha and Omega also means the “First and the Last (vs. 11a)
Conclusion: The First and the last means “the Alpha and the Omega”, and “the Beginning and the End” and “the One Who was and Who is and Who is to come.”
To put it simply it means the Eternal One. A little reading without presuposition is all that is needed to comprehend this. You said that my definition is “nothing more than a theory.”
thinker
Hi Thinker,
I agree with Marty. The Most High GOD redeemed His “kinsman,” His firstborn, the nation of Israel from Egypt and there was no other god besides Him. The culture of that day had many gods…none of THEM were with Him.Also, “the beginning and the end” would not be referring to an eternal concept because eternity has no beginning or end.
I think that the terms “first and last, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega” are more about being the first and last in a sequence of things, i.e. an “only” one of a kind.
The Most High GOD is a one of a kind
The Son of the Most High GOD is a one of a kindMy earthly father was my first and last father, the beginning earthly father of me and the end earthly father of me, the alpha and omega earthly father of me. He was the only earthly father I ever had, have now, or will have. Those terms are not indicating an eternal concept.
These concepts do not refer to eternity.
God bless,
KathiMarty said:
Quote God delivered Israel out of Egyptian bondage to Pharoah, and so that is what He means by being their redeemer. Marty,
The problem with your explanation is that it ignores the context in Isaiah 44:6. It's NOT speaking about a past redemption from the bondage of Egypt. It is speaking about a FUTURE redemption. The redemption spoken about is in connection with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (vs. 3). It is speaking about things “yet to come” (vs. 7). And YHWH calls Himself Israel's “Rock” (vs. 8). YHWH said,Quote There is no other Rock; I know not one (vs. 8) Paul said that Christ is the “Rock” that followed them in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4). Therefore, YHWH in Isaiah 44 is indeed Christ, “I know of no other Rock.” There is more that contradicts your commentary. But I will let you chew on this for a while.
Seeing that YHWH calls Himself the First and the Last and also the ONLY “ROCK”; and that Christ calls Himself the First and the Last and He is indeed the “Rock”, then the blood relative-redeemer in Isaiah 44:6 is Jesus.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,20:13) Quote (942767 @ June 16 2009,13:10) Quote (thethinker @ June 16 2009,12:40) Jesus said of Himself: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8
Attn bodhitharta: What was that you said about a “death blow” to trinitarianism?
thinker
Hi thethinker:This is what Jesus meant by saying he was the Alpha and Omega:
Quote Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev 1:18 I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.Love in Christ,
Marty
Marty,
What's your point? Jesus' claim to be the First and the Last is a clear reference to Isaiah 44:6 where YHWH claimed to be the First and the Last. YHWH also said that He was Israel's “goel” which means “blood relative.” The Father was NOT Israel's blood relative. That leaves who?thinker
Hi thethinker:My point is that he was saying he was the first born from the dead and that he is now alive eternally, therefore, he is the last. Goel according to Strong's can mean blood relative or kinsman redeemer, but not necessarily. Look up the definition.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (thethinker @ June 17 2009,21:38) Marty said: Quote God delivered Israel out of Egyptian bondage to Pharoah, and so that is what He means by being their redeemer. Marty,
The problem with your explanation is that it ignores the context in Isaiah 44:6. It's NOT speaking about a past redemption from the bondage of Egypt. It is speaking about a FUTURE redemption. The redemption spoken about is in connection with the pouring out of the Holy Spirit (vs. 3). It is speaking about things “yet to come” (vs. 7). And YHWH calls Himself Israel's “Rock” (vs. 8). YHWH said,Quote There is no other Rock; I know not one (vs. 8) Paul said that Christ is the “Rock” that followed them in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4). Therefore, YHWH in Isaiah 44 is indeed Christ, “I know of no other Rock.” There is more that contradicts your commentary. But I will let you chew on this for a while.
Seeing that YHWH calls Himself the First and the Last and also the ONLY “ROCK”; and that Christ calls Himself the First and the Last and He is indeed the “Rock”, then the blood relative-redeemer in Isaiah 44:6 is Jesus.
thinker
Hi thethinker:Even if it is speaking of the future, the scriptures state:
Quote 2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.And 1 Co. 10:4 states:
Quote 1Cr 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.This scripture states that those who came out of Egypt by Moses ate of the same spiritual meat and the drank the same spiritual drink. This speaking of spiritual meat and drink (the Word of God which was given to them by God through Moses at Mount Sianai.) My understanding is that by the statement “the spiritual Rock that followed them” is meant that Christ was the Word of God who would be manifest later and not that he was following them around at that time.
Love in Christ,
MartyMarty said:
Quote Hi thethinker: My point is that he was saying he was the first born from the dead and that he is now alive eternally, therefore, he is the last. Goel according to Strong's can mean blood relative or kinsman redeemer, but not necessarily. Look up the definition.
Marty,
The Strong's Concordance I have says that goel means “the next of kin“. What Strong's source are you using? If it is an online source please provide the link for me. The Father was NOT Israel's kinsman or blood relative. Jesus is the only person that meets the description in Isaiah 44:6:*YHWH calls Himself the King of Israel. Jesus is the King of Israel (John 12).
*YHWH calls Himself Israel's blood relative-redeemer. Jesus is Israel's blood relative and redeemer (Rom.1:1-3; 1 Peter 1:18)
*YHWH calls Himself the First and the Last. Jesus called Himself the First and the Last (Rev. 1:8, 17; 22:13 w/20).
*YHWH calls Himself the Almighty. Jesus called Himself the Almighty (Rev. 1:8)
*YHWH called Himself Israel's ONLY ROCK. Paul said that Christ was the ROCK that followed them in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4).
God is not going to write it in the sky for you. He has already put it in writing.
thinker
Marty said:
Quote Hi thethinker: Even if it is speaking of the future, the scriptures state:
2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.Marty,
The fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world does not subtract from who Jesus is. The scriptures also state that Christ is the SOURCE of eternal salvation,Quote And having been perfected, He became the AUTHOR of eternal salvation to all who obey Him (Heb. 5:9) According to Strong's the word “author” means “source.” Christ is the SOURCE of salvation. The anti-trinitarians like to rob Jesus of His rightful position.
Marty said:
Quote My understanding is that by the statement “the spiritual Rock that followed them” is meant that Christ was the Word of God who would be manifest later and not that he was following them around at that time. But they drank of that spiritual rock. So how could you say that the Rock would be manifested “later.” For you to say that the Rock would be manifested “later” is a batant denial of what Paul said. He said that they drank of the spiritual Rock.
And even if the Rock was manifested later so what? Your case is still hopeless. For YHWH said He is the Rock and He knows of no other Rock,
Quote Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one (Isaiah 44:8) YHWH knows of not other Rock. No not one. Yet Paul called Christ the Rock (past or future). Was Paul a polytheist?
thinker
Hi TT,
So Two gods are the source for you if you differentiate the Father from the Son?
Are you confused or polytheistic?Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2009,22:01) Hi TT,
So Two gods are the source for you if you differentiate the Father from the Son?
Are you confused or polytheistic?
Nick,
YHWH said that He is the Rock and that He knows of no other Rock (Isaiah 44:8). Paul said that Christ is the Rock. Therefore….btw, YHWH also said that He is “Elohim” which you know is PLURAL.
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
