Something in Matthew and Luke has me puzzled

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

In Revelation 1:8 Jesus says He is the Alpha and Omega, "the first and the last", the Almighty.

This is funny that you bring this up again, when I thoroughly refuted this argument, in another thread without you having any response.

Again, just because you shared your opinion doesn't mean you "refuted" anything. You shared your opinions only, nothing more, nothing less. Get out your Bible JM. In Revelation 1:8 Jesus says He is the "Alpha and Omega", He says He is the "First and the Last", and says He is "the Almighty". In Revelation 22:13 He says again "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End". Then turn to Revelation 1:17-18, Jesus, the "first and the Last" says this:

".. Fear not; I am the first and the last: 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."


1. When did "the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8) die?
2. How can God be the "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" (Rev. 1:8) and Jesus be the "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last" (Rev. 22:13)?
3. Jesus names Himself in verse 16 of Rev. chapter 22.

So your modus operandi is to just ignore the evidence and wait to bring it up again. Almighty is the first and the last, and that is God. So your sole argument is, "If it says God, it means Jesus, since there is a Trinity." which is a circular argument.

So tell me when God, "the First and the Last", died? (Revelation 1:17-18)

Tell me why the "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last", identifies Himself as "Jesus" in Rev. 22:16?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Again, just because you shared your opinion doesn't mean you "refuted" anything. You shared your opinions only, nothing more, nothing less.

That is what a refutation is, to argue against something. The important part is your lack of response to the refutation. So it is an unopposed refutation. Instead of supporting your position against the refutation, you ignore it and just restate your position elsewhere.
In my opinion, this indicates a dogmatism, which is the clinging to positions regardless of the evidence against it, for the sake of a party which you want to remain in good standing with, who hold these positions as doctrine. This is the definition of religion, which you claim to be against. In actuality, it is just everyone else's religion you are against.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by racasan

 

Thanks ManOfGod267 it looks like you are right the Septuagint was only a translation of the Five Books of Moses, these Christians are sneaky monkeys.

No, he fails to tell you that the Septuagint was completed in stages. And that the same Josephus says that those making the translation were "inspired" by God. I don't know if I agree with that, but I do have faith that these Hebrew scholars knew Hebrew.

You said

In 270 B.C. the 70 greatest Hebrew speaking rabbis completed the Hebrew bible into Greek, called the "Septuagint" (LXX). In the verse in Isaiah these Hebrew rabbis translated it as "virgin".

Were they wrong too?

I don’t have a problem with the fact that people with mad skillz at Hebrew did the translating – what I have problem with is the “rabbis” bit - I don't see how you can rule out the possibility that whoever did the translating didn't have their own agenda

And maybe you should take a closer look at ManOfGod267’s post – it makes a very good case for why the almah/ betulah/ Parthenos thing is a problem for christians

so the question is, would it get translated today as it was back then?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So tell me when God, "the First and the Last", died? (Revelation 1:17-18)

I can't think of when God died, as being described in the Bible directly.
In this scene, in the events described in the verses you cited, John says he was "in the spirit" and I would take that as meaning he could see things in a spiritual sense, as opposed to a literal sort of vision where things seem rather ordinary. For example, the description of the seven lamp stands being the churches. They were not literally the churches arranged in a formation in a room, but a representation of them in a symbolic way with spiritual meanings to the symbology. This same principle applies to what is being said by this angel who was there in order to tell John what to write.
There are three different ways in this chapter to convey the concept of eternity or of the being eternal; Alpha and Omega, the One who was, and is, and is to come, and the first and the last. In this scene the angel, or visionary representation, is saying he is the "first and last", which is different from the introduction to the book where John is describing the Almighty.
On another thread your claim was that Jesus was in fact, God Almighty. I am not sure how that is pertinent to the question of the humanity of Jesus unless you believed in a unity of godhead to where all along, during his life on Earth, Jesus was still acting God of the universe, which would be counter to standard trinity theory. More likely a specialized form of trinity theory, custom made to reject the idea that Jesus could have failed. The purpose, as I stated earlier in this thread, is to deny the believer in Jesus, the example to follow to become like him, in order to go with him to heaven where he dwells now. I would go further to claim that this religion was invented by Satan to be a counterfeit form of Christianity to force the followers of it to accept free grace, and thus avoid holiness, and then to fail to meet the criteria for admittance into heaven.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Tell me why the "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last", identifies Himself as "Jesus" in Rev. 22:16?

There is a parenthetical phrase that "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end!", without any explanation as to the identity other than an immortal being.
A couple verses later you do have a phrase which does identify who is doing the speaking: “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!”

So that may have been the angel speaking earlier and could also be the character elsewhere depicted as a warrior leading the army of Heaven. It may be assumed that the actual warfare they are engaged in is done by a general under authority of the Son of God, and not Jesus himself. Jesus would be busy collecting the ones he is coming to save.

reply to post by racasan


Many are confused about who Jesus is! Jesus is the son of God, not God. The Devil was not confused and was going about his business in tempting the one who he would most like to see sin. Jesus however, always did his father's will.

The authority that God gave to Adam was relinquished to the Devil upon Adam's willful disobedience. God's plan to redeem man and bring man back into a right relationship with him was accomplished by the second Adam, the man Jesus Christ.

By the disobedience of one, many were made sinners. By the obedience of one many will be made Righteous.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Tell me why the "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last", identifies Himself as "Jesus" in Rev. 22:16?

There is a parenthetical phrase that "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end!", without any explanation as to the identity other than an immortal being.
A couple verses later you do have a phrase which does identify who is doing the speaking: “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!”

So that may have been the angel speaking earlier and could also be the character elsewhere depicted as a warrior leading the army of Heaven. It may be assumed that the actual warfare they are engaged in is done by a general under authority of the Son of God, and not Jesus himself. Jesus would be busy collecting the ones he is coming to save.

edit on 14-8-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

You have been corrected on a number of issues regarding the interpretation of the scriptures and you refuse to acknowledge your erronous views.
My eyes now glaze over when I read your posts. Please forgive me if I do not seem to notice them in the future.

Peace.

reply to post by XplanetX

You have been corrected on a number of issues regarding the interpretation of the scriptures and you refuse to acknowledge your erronous views.
My eyes now glaze over when I read your posts. Please forgive me if I do not seem to notice them in the future.

All I get is "you are wrong" or "clearly you are wrong".
God allows a strong spirit of deception to enter the world in the last days so they will believe a lie and so be ready for destruction, because they did not want to become pure.
Once you take that path to follow sin, then you loose the ability to distinguish truth.
Lovers of lies are who are specifically pointed to as not entering Heaven.
The lie is that you can continue in sin and God will not punish you.
God has given us a path to salvation through Jesus.
Jesus is the first and the last, meaning there is no way outside of him.
The path to heaven is the path of righteousness, not rationalizing away your future punishment.

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sure anything for you my friend. I don't hate you just view the bible differently. Everyone has their opinion on the bible. Either Isaiah's (Rashi) or Ahaz (Radak) young wife will bear a son and, through prophetic inspiration, will give him the name Immanuel, which means "G-d is with Us." thus in effect prophesying that Judah will be saved from the threat of Rezin and Pekah.

You've not shown me yet how a normal pregnancy from a young woman is a miraculous "sign" from God. That has been commonplace for thousands of years. If a virgin conceives and bears a child that's never happened before, that's a miracle of God. that would be the sign to end all signs. A young woman conceiving and bearing a child doesn't need the hand of God to happen.

reply to post by jmdewey60

God allows a strong spirit of deception to enter the world in the last days so they will believe a lie and so be ready for destruction, because they did not want to become pure.

Actually it says God will be the one to send the strong delusion, and not "A" lie, but "THE" lie. Personal pronoun specific in the Greek, which means something greatly different than and distinct from any other of it's kind.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
I was just going from memory.
So, The lie.
Anything in particular that you know about that?

ETA: The use of the article has no affect on the meaning of this sentence.
In English, we could say the same thing without using any article.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Hey! Take it or leave it. I cannot force you to believe or change your mind. It's your choice on what that verse means. Just like any other verse in the text.
Does Isaiah 7:14 Foretell the Messiah?
Virtual Yeshiva
The Jewish Home
These are a few sites I go to in learning about these verses. In my Tanach it says maiden not virgin. So, you can see we don't see eye-to-eye.

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Hey! Take it or leave it. I cannot force you to believe or change your mind. It's your choice on what that verse means. Just like any other verse in the text.
Does Isaiah 7:14 Foretell the Messiah?
Virtual Yeshiva
The Jewish Home
These are a few sites I go to in learning about these verses. In my Tanach it says maiden not virgin. So, you can see we don't see eye-to-eye.

edit on 15-8-2011 by ManOfGod267 because: (no reason given)

Okay, again it also says it will be a sign, tell me how a young maiden conceiving and giving birth is a miraculous "sign"??

reply to post by NOTurTypical


From what I can say on top of my head G-d made it happened. As a sign of G-e being with the people. I will have to re-study and go into detail. But like I mention before we see the verse differently so, both of our answers will be alien to each other. I believe the Jewish translation. While you believe it about Jesus. Trust me! I've been in enough circles debating creationism and evolution. Simply stating anything will not change a persons mind. You'll have to see Isaiah as the Jews do.

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

From what I can say on top of my head G-d made it happened. As a sign of G-e being with the people. I will have to re-study and go into detail. But like I mention before we see the verse differently so, both of our answers will be alien to each other. I believe the Jewish translation. While you believe it about Jesus. Trust me! I've been in enough circles debating creationism and evolution. Simply stating anything will not change a persons mind. You'll have to see Isaiah as the Jews do.

I realize this, but you have to ask yourself "why". Why would a normal everyday conception and birth by a young woman be a miraculous "sign" from God. "The" sign in most respects. Ask yourself why or how that could ever be considered a sign from God.

reply to post by racasan


Pride ... and God had flesh , that flesh could be tempted , Satan goes all out , he doesnt tippy toe around.

However , not once did God give into his Flesh while walking this Earth , he is the only perfect man there for worthy to be our link to God the Farther.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well I already explained it. It's in the eyes of the beholder. If we can get together and study the book of Isaiah then we would understand better. But it's how you view it. Like I mentioned before. You're used to seeing that verse relating to Jesus and I see it as the Jews would see it. That's is why we don't understand why the other will see this verse like this. You would have to study the book of Isaiah and see what it says to you. I already generalized my view on the verse. Only you can look more deeply into the verse and book.

The whole idea of Jesus being God "in the flesh" doesn't make any sense because Jesus himself ...

-prayed to God in his hour of need ("let this cup pass from me")
-advised others to pray to God, and NOT include him in worship (the Shema)
-acknowledged that God is higher than he is ("no man knows the hour")

...only to name a few instances which completely nullifies the idea that Jesus is God.

Also, bear in mnd that when Jesus mentioned the "2 greatest commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40),
he made it clear that the first was to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." Here, Jesus did not even remotely suggest that he, was God.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Don't Christians believe in the Trinity or at least One God and Three Persons? Which doesn't make sense to me but will to them. I only believe in One G-d.

reply to post by ManOfGod267


well, there are groups of christians who are monotheistic.

www.christianmonotheism.com...

Either way, the point is that Jesus, the central figure of christianity himself was monotheistic... and never sought worship. Instead, his mission was to bring people into the worship of the one true God.