Who is the Alpha & Omega?

[Homer]

Darin,

Do you see any "holes" in Zodhiates comment about Colossians 1:15ff?

Thanks, Homer

[darinhouston]

Darin,

Do you see any "holes" in Zodhiates comment about Colossians 1:15ff?

Thanks, Homer

The first paragraph is pretty good except for the most important bit - this "but that they were eternally related One to the Other" does not follow and is a premise that needs to be proven. Otherwise, I think I agree with that paragraph completely.

The second paragraph is full of conjecture and presuppositions and is sort of just generally Swiss cheese.

[dwight92070]

There was a time in my walk that a few Scriptures made me wonder how they could apply if Christ were Divine.

I just asked God the truth, and he confirmed it to my heart.

In other words, your "confirmation" was totally subjective. In and of itself, that "method of confirmation" is totally unreliable. That reminds me of how the Mormons tell us that we can "verify" that Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet, and that his message is true. "Just ask God and He will give you a 'burning in your bosom', which will 'prove' that Joseph Smith is a true prophet", they say. In fact, they quote Luke 24:32 to "show" that this is a Biblical practice: "Were not our hearts burning within us, while he was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the scriptures to us?"

The Mormons take this verse totally out of context. These disciples didn't need any verification that Jesus was a true prophet of God. They already believed that. We see that in verse 19. In fact, Jesus gave them what they needed - a Bible study: Verse 27 - "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He EXPLAINED to them the things concerning Himself in ALL THE SCRIPTURES." Also verse 32 - " ... while He was EXPLAINING THE SCRIPTURES to us." They didn't need a miraculous physical feeling in their chest. They needed to "turn their brains on" and their logic and their reasoning to UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE VERSES that He gave them.

Nothing can be "confirmed in our heart" without going through the brain. Some have said that the heart (or soul) is the mind, the will, and the emotions.

[dwight92070]

Okay, I'm going to use my logic and reasoning here, which are both, in themselves, gifts from God that we all have. The Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end - they all are the same thing, or to be more precise, they all are the same Person. Each phrase has the same meaning as the other two.

Revelation 22:12-13 sums it up clearly: "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

There's no doubt that Jesus is speaking here. He is the One Who is coming, and He is the One Who will judge every man according to his deeds. He also claims all three titles in the next sentence. Yet God claims all three titles as well. In fact, a "Person" could not be one of the titles without also being the other two, because they all express and mean the same thing.

How simple, and logical, and reasonable is this? Jesus claims all three titles. God claims all three titles. JESUS IS GOD.

By what logic and reason do you conclude that these descriptors are "titles" that uniquely refer to a person? I believe it is at least feasible that it's more like "I'm the bee's knees, the be all and end all, the purpose and meaning of life" and so forth - it's more than that, of course, and has origins and eschatology in view (perhaps original creation for the Father/God and New Creation with respect to the Christ/Jesus". But, your premise needs proof if you are going to use logic here.

I think my reason and logic are obvious. I'm simply taking the scriptures at face value.

The first and the last.
Isaiah 41:4 (the speaker is the Lord); 44:6 (the speaker is called the Lord, the King of Israel and His Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, and God); Isaiah 48:12 (the speaker is called the Lord, the God of Israel, and by implication, the Creator)
Revelation 1:17 (the speaker is one like a son of man, the living One Who was dead and is now alive forevermore, and has the keys of death and of Hades); Revelation 2:8 (the speaker "was dead, and has come to life); Revelation 22:13 (the speaker says that He is coming quickly, and His reward is with Him, the speaker is also called the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, as well as the first and the last.)

From the Isaiah verses, we see that "the First and the Last" is Yahweh, the King of Israel, the Lord of Hosts, God, the God of Israel, and the Creator. His Redeemer is also referred to as the speaker as well.
From the Revelation verses, we see that "the first and the last is like the son of man, the Living One who was dead, and is now alive forevermore, and has the keys of death and of Hades, Who is coming quickly and has His reward with Him, also known as the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."

Logic and reason tell me, since the first and the last is Yahweh, God, the Creator, the King and God of Israel, and He is One (There not more than One.) and that all of those also apply to Jesus in the New Testament, with the added information that He was dead, but is alive forever, that He is coming quickly and is also called the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, then I can easily conclude that Jesus is that One God, and that all those titles refer to Him as well as God.

That's just looking at "the first and the last" passages. I could do the same with the other titles, but if that's not logical and reasonable to you, then we have different definitions of logic and reason.

[darinhouston]

Perhaps you can re-read my question - you presuppose it, you don't provide any reasoned basis for that presupposition. At least none I can gather from your response.

[dwight92070]

God is the first and the last. Jesus is the first and the last. Jesus is God.
Is that simple enough?

[darinhouston]

God is the first and the last. Jesus is the first and the last. Jesus is God.
Is that simple enough?

Again, the rock is brown; the tree is brown. But the rock isn't necessarily the tree.

God is Lord and Jesus is Lord. But Jesus is not thereby necessarily God.


Your "syllogism" is only valid if "first and the last" is a title and it is UNIQUELY reserved for God. It is used by both in Scripture but it is not used enough or with enough context to conclude this. It is somewhat unique in Scripture. I don't know if it's used in extra-biblical literature. We just don't have enough usage of those terms to know this.

Again, if COULD be true, but there is no evidence beyond the fact that both God and Jesus are referred to by the same term in these limited applications. My suggestion that the terms "COULD" (again, this is all fairly speculative on either side) be used in a special sense reserved for a "god" or "lord" of something like a creation. If so, then it could well be that the Father is "the first and the last" of the physical universe that was created in the Genesis beginning, and the Son could be the "first and the last" of the spiritual order that the Son is the god or lord of (possibly referenced in GJohn and EJohns). That doesn't equate to co-eternal co-equality sameness as part of the same godhead. But, all of this is speculation. It's a strange passage and beyond recognizing the "be all and end all" context that it conveys for both, we have to bring presuppositions to the text to take a more specific position with respect to some existential meaning behind the term.

[dwight92070]

God is the first and the last. Jesus is the first and the last. Jesus is God.
Is that simple enough?

Again, the rock is brown; the tree is brown. But the rock isn't necessarily the tree.

Dwight -It's illogical and unreasonable for you to compare those sentences with the titles of God and Jesus. "Brown" is an adjective which describes the color of the rock and the tree. But the rock and the tree are not literally the color brown. Conversely, God IS the first and the last, and Jesus IS the first and the last. You could put it this way, God = the first and the last and Jesus = the first and the last. Therefore God = Jesus. You cannot say the tree = brown or the rock = brown. The apostle John said that Jesus was "making Himself equal (=) with God". John 5:18

These are simple concepts. They are not hard to understand. But you refuse to take simple, straightforward, verses at face value. To you, the English words often do not mean what everyone knows that they mean, especially when you can't prove your point without changing the meaning. If there was a language judge here, I would say "objection", and say, "Darin knows what these words mean, but he wants to make us to think that they mean something else, to reach the conclusion he wants." The judge would say "sustained".

God is Lord and Jesus is Lord. But Jesus is not thereby necessarily God.


Your "syllogism" is only valid if "first and the last" is a title and it is UNIQUELY reserved for God.

Dwight - Again, "the first and the last" is obviously a title, as are all the others, each of which is uniquely reserved for God, but you are pretending that neither of those are true, because that would lead to a conclusion that you don't want to agree with. "Your honor, I object." "Sustained."

[darinhouston]

obvious to you, perhaps, but you have not convinced anyone else. I am not pretending it's not true, but I am asserting that it has not been demonstrated to be so.

[dwight92070]

obvious to you, perhaps, but you have not convinced anyone else. I am not pretending it's not true, but I am asserting that it has not been demonstrated to be so.

I think most people who have concluded from honest Bible study that the Trinity is true, already know the obvious truth of what the Bible says about these titles of God and Jesus. I don't have to convince them. Many of them knew it long before I did. However, it's impossible to convince someone who won't acknowledge the clear, plain, meaning of the Bible words.