Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

That would be Modalism.

Yes, you should "wonder if anything would be satisfactory" since the very concept of the actual Trinity, as gotquestions.org says, is "Not possible to be understood by the human mind", so why would any explanation be satisfactory to someone who doesn't buy the concept of "mystery" or things that aren't "Possible to be understood". Your definition of "person" is not even close to the general Athanasian or Nicene concept, so it wouldn't be acceptable to the classical "Trinitarians" either, it would be rejected as Sabbelianism. If they are different intellects and different minds, then they are in fact separate beings, not just "persons". You'll have to explain how a "person" can be different without being a different being.

I do not find the Trinity as important as most and so am not the most knowledgable about the subject. However I actually thought my response was adaquite. The definition of person came from the biblical dictionary and so I think is reliable. However I do not claim think I have enough insight on this issue to help. What is it that you find so important about the resolution to this issue. My faith is unaffected by this issue in it's core areas anyway. Wheather Jesus is God, God-like, or a human messiah I still must believe in him and be born again of the spirit on the basis of his crucifixion and resurrection. If you can explain why this is so important you may suffeciently motivate me to become well versed and competent on the issue.

 

[Shermana]

I do not find the Trinity as important as most and so am not the most knowledgable about the subject. However I actually thought my response was adaquite. The definition of person came from the biblical dictionary and so I think is reliable. However I do not claim think I have enough insight on this issue to help. What is it that you find so important about the resolution to this issue. My faith is unaffected by this issue in it's core areas anyway. Wheather Jesus is God, God-like, or a human messiah I still must believe in him and be born again of the spirit on the basis of his crucifixion and resurrection. If you can explain why this is so important you may suffeciently motivate me to become well versed and competent on the issue.

Its so important because

a) It's the thread OP.

b) It matters greatly in how one perceives what exactly Jesus was teaching and whose authority he was under (i.e. not his own) and to render undue ideas distorts the Jewish context of the story about the Jewish Messiah. It gives the Rabbis much ammunition against what they call "Christianity" even if its all 3-headed strawmen. It also denies aspects like being the Incarnation of the "Firstborn of Creation". If he is "godlike" than that makes a critical difference.

c) It is an exposed weak point of "orthodox" Christianity.

 

[1robin]

Its so important because

a) It's the thread OP.

b) It matters greatly in how one perceives what exactly Jesus was teaching and whose authority he was under (i.e. not his own) and to render undue ideas distorts the Jewish context of the story about the Jewish Messiah. It gives the Rabbis much ammunition against what they call "Christianity" even if its all 3-headed strawmen. It also denies aspects like being the Incarnation of the "Firstborn of Creation". If he is "godlike" than that makes a critical difference.

c) It is an exposed weak point of "orthodox" Christianity.

You might be correct about the OP even though it says "Did Jesus say he was God" not is the trinity true. Regardless my point was it is an important isssue but not one that would change the core of what it means to be a Christian. If Jesus was God then I must have faith in his life and death and be born again to get to heaven. If Jesus was not God then I still must have faith in his life and death and be born again to get to heaven. It is secondary issue that I think distracts from the core. Of course it should be discussed but I find it overly emphasized by both sides. IMO he was God, he did things and said things that make him being a deity the most logical explenation but as I find it less than a provable fact either way and not absolutely necessary concerning salvation, I will leave it to others.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If Jesus was God, why does Revelation [3 v 14] say he is the beginning of the creation by God?

Why does Jesus refer to himself as God's Son and not ever say he is God.? -John 10 v 36
Even the resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he is the Son of God according to Revelation 2 v 18. Jesus still thinks he has a God above him.- Rev. 3 v 12.

 

[1robin]

If Jesus was God, why does Revelation [3 v 14] say he is the beginning of the creation by God?

Why does Jesus refer to himself as God's Son and not ever say he is God.? -John 10 v 36

Even the resurrected heavenly Jesus still thinks he is the Son of God according to Revelation 2 v 18. Jesus still thinks he has a God above him.- Rev. 3 v 12.

Apparently thhis is a common mistake:

1. Christ is the "Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:11) of God's creation. This creation is not the creation of trees and animals as recorded in Genesis 1, but rather the "creation" of new men and women. "Create" and "creation" are frequently used in this regenerative sense in the New Testament. See, for example, the following: Eph. 2:10, 15 cf. 4:23, 24; Col. 3:9, 10 R.S.V.; Gal. 6:15; James 1:18; 2 Cor. 5:17.
2. Revelation 3:14 refers to this new creation and not to the creation of Genesis 1. This is indicated by the context:
   1. ". . . hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." (Rev. 3:11).
   2. "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God . . . and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem . . . and I will write upon him my new name." (vs. 12).
   3. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne . . ." (vs. 21).
   The "making", "writing" and "granting" refer to the "new" Jerusalem and the new name - the ultimate regeneration of believers, and not to the creative acts on the earth of Genesis 1.
3. Jesus is the "beginning" of this new creation - the first to live, die and to receive life for evermore. (Rev. 1:18). As Paul puts it: "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Col. 1:18). Christ is the "first and the last", the "Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:11)1 of this new creation.
4. A further proof, (but more lengthy to develop) that "the beginning of the creation of God" refers to Christ as "the firstborn from the dead" and not as the creator of the universe, can be deduced by noting that Rev. 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen" is a commentary on Rev. 3:14. If this can be shown then clearly Rev. 3:14 refers to the creation which commenced with Christ's death and resurrection. The proof rests in a comparison of the introductory statements about Jesus which begin each of the letters to the seven ecclesias with the description of Jesus in the first chapter. Consider the following:
   
   
   
   1. To Ephesus - "These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks." (Rev. 2:1). Cf. Rev. 1:20.
      
      
   2. To Smyrna - "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive." (Rev. 2:8). Cf. Rev. 1:11, 18.
      
      
   3. To Pergamos - "These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges." (Rev. 2:12). Cf. Rev. 1:16.
      
      
   4. To Thyatira - "These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass." (Rev. 2:18). Cf. Rev. 1:14, 15.
      
      
   5. To Sardis - "These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars . . ." (Rev. 3:1). Cf. Rev. 1:4.
      
      
   6. To Philadelphia - "These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth." (Rev. 3:7). Cf. Rev. 1:18.
      
      
   7. Therefore,
      
      
   8. To Laodicea - "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Rev. 3:14) Cf. "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." (Rev. 1:18). Clearly, "the beginning of the creation of God" = "I am he that liveth and was dead." (i.e., "the firstborn from the dead".) (Col. 1:18).

The Trinity - Revelation 3:14

Son of God is a title or role not a relative position or essence.

 

[Shermana]

Christ is the "Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:11)

The Alpha and Omega in 1:11 is spurious and is only in the KJV and is either a copyist error or an outright interpolation. Are you a KJV-onlyist? Are you aware why it doesn't exist in the other versions?

And before you bring up Rev 22:13, that is the Father speaking through Jesus's Angel in that verse.

 

[1robin]

The Alpha and Omega in 1:11 is spurious and is only in the KJV and is either a copyist error or an outright interpolation. Are you a KJV-onlyist? Are you aware why it doesn't exist in the other versions?

I made at least a dozen claims in my post and you made one questionable response to only one 1 verse. How does that prove your case? It seems to be in additional versions than just the King James and it appears in all 18 major versions in other verses.

Webster's Bible Translation
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea
Young's Literal Translation
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, 'What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
Revelation 1:11 which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

This is ties in with Rev 1:8

New International Version (©1984)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

New Living Translation (©2007)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One."
English Standard Version (©2001)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.
Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Who this is about is obvious from Rev 1:7
Rev 1:7
New International Version (©1984)
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen
Revelation 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

And before you bring up Rev 22:13, that is the Father speaking through Jesus's Angel in that verse.

Once again you have adopted a position that seems to be contrary to the concensus commentary view.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
22:6-19 The Lord Jesus spake by the angel, solemnly confirming the contents of this book, particularly of this last vision. He is the Lord God faithful and true. Also by his messengers; the holy angels showed them to holy men of God. They are things that must shortly be done; Christ will come quickly, and put all things out of doubt.

Wesley's Notes

22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last - Who exist from everlasting to everlasting. How clear, incontestable a proof, does our Lord here give of his divine glory! Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
13. I am Alpha-Greek, ". the Alpha and the Omega." A, B, Vulgate, Syriac, Origen, and Cyprian transpose thus, "the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." Andreas supports English Version. Compare with these divine titles assumed here by the Lord Jesus, Re 1:8, 17; 21:6. At the winding up of the whole scheme of revelation He announces Himself as the One before whom and after whom there is no God.

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

 

[Shermana]

I made at least a dozen claims in my post and you made one questionable response to only one 1 verse.

That's the only verse I felt was needed to address at that moment, the others do a fine job of proving that Jesus is a separate person.

How does that prove your case? It seems to be in additional versions than just the King James and it appears in all 18 major versions in other verses.

All 18? Do you even bother to check?

Revelation 1:11 which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

Let's see, does the NIV not count as a "major version" ? Even the Douay-Rheims gets this right. Young's does not always use the best manuscripts. Do you think its just some NWT thing?

JOHANNINE COMMA}

"You say that the NWT differs from ALL other translations in Rev. 1:11, but that's simply not true. In fact the NIV, NASB, NRSV, and NAB, just to name four, agree with the NWT in this verse. So why do you find it necessary to state a falsehood to criticize the NWT? This is pretty typical of the exaggeration of the NWT's difference from other translations that I hear all the time."-italics ours

Webster's Bible Translation
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea
Young's Literal Translation
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, 'What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
Revelation 1:11 which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

This is ties in with Rev 1:8

New International Version (©1984)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

New Living Translation (©2007)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One."
English Standard Version (©2001)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.
Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Who this is about is obvious from Rev 1:7
Rev 1:7
New International Version (©1984)
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen
Revelation 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

That's not all 18 major versions. Try some honesty. Now look at 1:7 yourself, God is talking about Jesus as a separate being right before addressing himself as Alpha and Omega and this is a message from an Angel, like in 22:13 so its the Angel's message of the Father's words. Jesus himself speaks in 1:11, not through an Angel. Why does Jesus have revelation that "God gave him" anyway? Some manuscript writers went out of their way to include a spurious Alpha and Omega in 1:11 that doesn't make sense whatsoever in the context of 1:7-8 where it's used directly by the Father himself. Are you at least willing to admit that the the 1:11 issue is not as universally concrete as you think? Most Bible scholars agree it is in fact spurious, that's why so many translations don't include it. It was added as an interpolation. It's that simple. Why do you think the NIV and Douay Rheims discluded it? They're not exactly anti-Trinitarian. Do you also think 1 John 5:7 is authentic? As you can see, Rev 1:1-8 is the Father talking directly, and if he refers to Jesus as a separate person even after the resurrection then you know they're different beings by the intended context. Someone slipped in the Alpha and Omega in 1:11 in some manuscripts probably because they recognized that this distinction was being clearly made and wanted to "smooth things over" for the Trinitarian doctrine, a similar issue to 1 John 5:7. Are you a KJV-onlyist by chance? Where did you get the idea that "all 18 major versions" contain the addition? Only a few do and they are related to the KJV Textus Receptus movement.

Once again you have adopted a position that seems to be contrary to the concensus commentary view.

Most of my positions go against the consensus commentary view. If you want to base your opinions on what the consensus commentary view, then admit that it's the Protestant Evangelical consensus view. There are times however that these commentaries are useful in extracting the direct meaning of the physical text in terms of words, but they are often skewed in context.

See this speaker confusion issue. If you complain the source is biased without addressing it, you'll have to explain why your own sources aren't biased towards the Evangelical view.

Examining the Trinity: AO - Speaker Confusion

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 modern Bible scholars:

Some (e.g. Martin, p. 92, Kingdom of the Cults, 1985) attempt to prove their "Jehovah is Jesus" idea by pointing to Rev. 1:8 where God is clearly called "Alpha and Omega" and then saying that Jesus claims the same title at Rev. 22:13. They point to Rev. 22:16 as proof that it is Jesus who is claiming to be the Alpha and Omega of verse 13. Since Jehovah is clearly Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8), they say, and Jesus is Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13), then Jesus IS Jehovah.


Although one might make a case for the "title confusion trick" (see the TC study) here (e.g., Jehovah is the only savior (yasha, - Hebrew) - Is. 43:11, ASV - and Ehud is a savior (yasha, - Hebrew) - Judges 3:15, ASV - therefore Ehud must be Jehovah), it is most likely that this is simply an example of the "speaker confusion trick."

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 notGod 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

There's a difference between relying on commentary and relying on commentary that is entirely based on one tradition.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God gives Jesus the Revelation [Rev. 1 v 1]

Jesus is never called as 'Almighty' but 'Mighty'. [Isaiah 9 v 6]

The Lord of Rev. [1 v 8] is 'Lord Almighty'. [El Shaddai]

God Almighty is the one saying to write at verse 11.

 

[1robin]

That's the only verse I felt was needed to address at that moment, the others do a fine job of proving that Jesus is a separate person.

He is a seperate person but a member of the same being.

All 18? Do you even bother to check?

Yep. I think you missed the qualifier where I said it appears in all 18 in other verses not the one you mentioned.New International Version(©1984)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
New Living Translation(©2007)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega--the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One."
English Standard Version(©2001)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
New American Standard Bible(©1995)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.
International Standard Version(©2008)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," declares the Lord God, "the one who is, who was, and who is coming, the Almighty."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
I am The Alap and The Tau, says THE LORD JEHOVAH God, he who is and has been and is coming, The Almighty.
GOD'S WORD® Translation(©1995)
"I am the A and the Z," says the Lord God, the one who is, the one who was, and the one who is coming, the Almighty.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
American King James Version
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, said the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
American Standard Version
I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
Douay-Rheims Bible
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
Darby Bible Translation
I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
English Revised Version
I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.
Webster's Bible Translation
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
Weymouth New Testament
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "He who is and was and evermore will be--the Ruler of all." World English Bible
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Young's Literal Translation
'I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is coming -- the Almighty.'
Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 1:11 which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

Let's see, does the NIV not count as a "major version" ? Even the Douay-Rheims gets this right. Young's does not always use the best manuscripts. Do you think its just some NWT thing?

JOHANNINE COMMA}

That's not all 18 major versions. Try some honesty. Now look at 1:7 yourself, God is talking about Jesus as a separate being right before addressing himself as Alpha and Omega and this is a message from an Angel, like in 22:13 so its the Angel's message of the Father's words. Jesus himself speaks in 1:11, not through an Angel. Why does Jesus have revelation that "God gave him" anyway? Some manuscript writers went out of their way to include a spurious Alpha and Omega in 1:11 that doesn't make sense whatsoever in the context of 1:7-8 where it's used directly by the Father himself. Are you at least willing to admit that the the 1:11 issue is not as universally concrete as you think? Most Bible scholars agree it is in fact spurious, that's why so many translations don't include it. It was added as an interpolation. It's that simple. Why do you think the NIV and Douay Rheims discluded it? They're not exactly anti-Trinitarian. Do you also think 1 John 5:7 is authentic? As you can see, Rev 1:1-8 is the Father talking directly, and if he refers to Jesus as a separate person even after the resurrection then you know they're different beings by the intended context. Someone slipped in the Alpha and Omega in 1:11 in some manuscripts probably because they recognized that this distinction was being clearly made and wanted to "smooth things over" for the Trinitarian doctrine, a similar issue to 1 John 5:7. Are you a KJV-onlyist by chance? Where did you get the idea that "all 18 major versions" contain the addition? Only a few do and they are related to the KJV Textus Receptus movement.
Most of my positions go against the consensus commentary view. If you want to base your opinions on what the consensus commentary view, then admit that it's the Protestant Evangelical consensus view. There are times however that these commentaries are useful in extracting the direct meaning of the physical text in terms of words, but they are often skewed in context.

See this speaker confusion issue. If you complain the source is biased without addressing it, you'll have to explain why your own sources aren't biased towards the Evangelical view.

Examining the Trinity: AO - Speaker Confusion
There's a difference between relying on commentary and relying on commentary that is entirely based on one tradition.

I have lost track of this conversation and so can't quite see the relevance in your comments above. This is my fault as I am very busy at the moment but I did want to clarify the 18 versions issue.

 

[Shermana]

We're discussing 1:11. I already posted 1:11 with all those versions, but I'll repeat if it helps you stay on track.

Here is 1:8, which you just posted:

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

New International Version (©1984)
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

What we're discussing however, is 1:11. I am not arguing that the Alpha and Omega doesn't exist in 1:8. You objected in #6478 that the Alpha and Omega is in all 18 versions of 1:11. So that means you should post 1:11, not 1:8. You said it "ties into 1:8", which I am disagreeing with, not what 1:8 says.

Revelation 1:11 which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

New Living Translation (©2007)
It said, "Write in a book everything you see, and send it to the seven churches in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

So I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just lost track in your attempt to prove that the Spurious Alpha and Omega exists in these versions in 1:11 when Jesus is the one directly talking which I just showed doesn't. It does not show up in the "18 major" versions but the KJV and some of its Derivatives and a few Evangelical versions. You are confusing it with 1:8.

 

[1robin]

We're discussing 1:11. I already posted 1:11 with all those versions, but I'll repeat if it helps you stay on track.

Here is 1:8, which you just posted:

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
What we're discussing however, is 1:11. I am not arguing that the Alpha and Omega doesn't exist in 1:8. You objected in #6478 that the Alpha and Omega is in all 18 versions of 1:11. So that means you should post 1:11, not 1:8. You said it "ties into 1:8", which I am disagreeing with, not what 1:8 says.

Post 6478 isn't mine it is the Baha 'i guy's. My post was 6487 and I said this:

It seems to be in additional versions than just the King James and it appears in all 18 major versions in other verses.

I specifically said in the other verses. I am sorry I do not have any more time I will attempt to get caught up monday and I would suggest you do as well.

 

[Shermana]

Excuse me, I thought you meant to say that it was in more "verses" as in the "Verses in the version" than just the King James version since the subject itself was about 1:11 and not 1:8. If it doesn't show up in 1:11, then your comparison to 1:8 doesn't matter in the first place. Again, I don't disagree that it says this in 1:8. The fact that some verses spuriously interpolate the "Alpha and Omega" into verse 11 proves that there was in fact a concerted effort to put Trinitarian renditions in various places that didn't belong, like 1 John 5:7 and likely Matthew 28:19.

There are two different speakers in 1:8 and 1:11. Without the "Alpha and Omega" in 1:11, you cannot connect those speakers as the same being. Its spurious inclusions in the KJV proves that there was a likely effort to artificially connect them.

 

[`mud]

I really wish that Jesus would have written something down,
other than playing criss-cross in the sand.
We'll not know now will we, and all this argument is for naught.
And the word of Paul is imbedded with invention,
along with Matthew being beset with poor memory.
The tax not paid, the word not given.
~
Not one word of proof did He give, in His own writing,
ahhhh...curse the stenographers..and their lying quills.
~
`mud

 

[Muffled]

Mohammed pbuh never claimed that he is god or compared himself to god,he is just a messenger and god's slave.

Yes Bahaullah claimed that he is god,and we don't believe that to be true,Jesus pbuh didn't claim himself to be god,but i guess that is a historical mistake done by human.

Your link about Sahl al-Tustari which i did never hear about his name before and i never heard about such hadith that Mohammed pbuh to compare himself with god,bahaullah is far different from our belief in Islam,in my opinion bahaullah is much close to hindusim than to islam,specially that Iran is close to India and to the east than the Abrahamic religion which is born in the Arabs & jews world.

At best Baha'u'llah appears to be an illuminati, one who bears witness of spiritual things. Without a doubt Baha'u'llah does not talk or act like God.

Jesus declared himself to be God by sying that He and the Father are one, so your statement that He never did is erroneous. I have never seen a shred of evidence that the Bile record has been significantly changed and you have provided none either.

 

[Muffled]

Its from a Hadith that has no full chain of narration that is only seen Authentic by Bahai, kinda silly to promote your religion with blasphemous oral sayings?

O and you know the Quran better then Moi? Even the Bahai person didn't interpret Allah(swt) being incarnated.

Since you started this how would you interpret this:

(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).


Or what about the Islamic creed (Tahweed)?:

Allah is Eternal; He has no beginning.
All the creations have a beginning. Allah created them.

Allah is Everlasting; He has no end.
It is mentally possible for all the creation to end.

The Attributes of Allah are eternal and everlasting; they have no beginning or end.
The attributes of the creation are created. They have a beginning and it is mentally possible for them to end.

The Attributes of Allah do not change, develop, or transform, because those processes belong to the attributes of the creation.
The attributes of the creation change, develop, and transform from one state to another, because Allah is their Creator.

Allah is the Creator of the world and what is in it. He is the Creator of good and evil. He is the Creator of the actions of the slaves, and He is their Sustainer.
The creations do not create good or evil. They do not create any of their actions. The one who cuts an apple is not able to put it back together as it was.

Allah is One with no partners to Him. He is One in His Self, Attributes, and Actions.
The creations are of many different shapes and colors. Even the same kind of fruit can be either sweet or sour. Yet the creations still resemble each other in many aspects.

Allah is not a body; He does not have a size, and does not occupy space.
The creations have sizes and places in which they reside.

Allah does not need the creation.
The creations are in need of their Creator; they are in need of Allah.

Allah is the only One Who deserves to be worshipped. No one is God but He.
The creations do not deserve to be worshipped, because they are weak and are in need of their Creator.

The creed of the Muslims is that Allah is unlike the creations. Imam al-Junayd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Tawhid is to differentiate between the Eternal and the created.”

My understanding of the Qu'ran comes from God. Where does your understanding come from?

Baha'is misinterpret the Bible the Qu'ran and the writings of the Baha'u'llah for the same reason ie their understanding doesn't come from God.

If you are talking in respect to Jesus, there is no-one like Him in speech and actions although some have tried to imitate Him.

True, but the Spirit of God in Jesus is eternal. The person of Jesus is characterized by His indwelling spirit. Without a spirit a body is just an animal.

This is correct. When Jesus says He and the Father are one He is not attributing Himself as a partner of God but as God Himself. When the Paraclete comes, He does not act as a partner but as a master.

This is correct. God is spirit. Jesus is a man with the Spirit of God resident.

That is the way it should be as long as you remember that in Jesus the eternal and creation exist together as one person.

 

[1robin]

Excuse me, I thought you meant to say that it was in more "verses" as in the "Verses in the version" than just the King James version since the subject itself was about 1:11 and not 1:8. If it doesn't show up in 1:11, then your comparison to 1:8 doesn't matter in the first place. Again, I don't disagree that it says this in 1:8. The fact that some verses spuriously interpolate the "Alpha and Omega" into verse 11 proves that there was in fact a concerted effort to put Trinitarian renditions in various places that didn't belong, like 1 John 5:7 and likely Matthew 28:19.

There are two different speakers in 1:8 and 1:11. Without the "Alpha and Omega" in 1:11, you cannot connect those speakers as the same being. Its spurious inclusions in the KJV proves that there was a likely effort to artificially connect them.

So your position is there are two distict speakers (beings) in the space of three verses? This particular issue out of many centers on who is speaking in 1:11 correct?
Also maybe this will clear things a bit. Here is the other versions that contain Alpha and Omega in 1:11:
Webster's Bible Translation
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
Young's Literal Translation
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;' and, 'What thou dost see, write in a scroll, and send to the seven assemblies that are in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.
Revelation 1:11 which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
This doesn't prove anything I just wanted to clarify what I had said.

 

[Shermana]

Yes. Are you aware that 1:11 takes place at a different time and day than 1:8? Have you read Chapter 1 in full?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes. Are you aware that 1:11 takes place at a different time and day than 1:8? Have you read Chapter 1 in full?

Most that profess that "God" and Yeshua are "one" in the same...("God")...have no idea that Yeshua maintains he is separate from his god if they continue reading all the way up to Rev. 3:12....... or even further back when Yeshua says....



John 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him."

Yet this thread progresses without any evidence that Yeshua said he himself is "God"....but all the evidence points to the contrary.

 

[1robin]

Yes. Are you aware that 1:11 takes place at a different time and day than 1:8? Have you read Chapter 1 in full?

Yes I have read it but I do not claim to have a good understanding of it, but that might change within the course of this discussion.