Revelation 2:8

[Wootah]

8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Q: Who is the First and Last?
A: God.

If God is the first and last and also died and came to life again isn't that Jesus.

How does anyone get around this scriptural interpretation?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by shnarkle]

The word is the means of creation, and creates everything that exists including all manihhfestations of God which should never be conflated with God.

What do you mean, "the word"?

The John 1 "Logos"[or "logos"]?

yes, the logos which eventually "became flesh" and is also referred in Revelation as "the word of God". God's word is the word of John 1

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by shnarkle]

Again,l provided plenty of verses showing that God is incomparable which is to say transcendent.

Where are they?

Sorry, my bad. I was just posting on another topic and thought the quotes were posted here.


Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. Psalms 86:8
I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, Isaiah 45:5
Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee 2 Samuel 7:22
O LORD, there is none like thee 1 Chronicles 17:20
So the biblical God isn't like anyone. God is incomparable or transcendent

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by shnarkle]

If God is incomparable how can we relate to God? How can the word (as I try to understand your position) even begin to do its job to tell me about God if God is incomparable?

Relationships are through relating, or being relational. Paul points out that God is the origin of everything that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists. We are what exists. We are what is created from God by the word of God which is Christ. God's image is stamped upon us. We are created in God's image which immediately gives us a relationship with God. The word "image" in the Greek is "iekon" which is where we get the word "Icon". We are all icons of God which isn't to say that we are God, but symbols of God. Christ is the penultimate image though; a perfect image of God. Christ invites us to become part of that relatinoship he has with transcendence through the spirit which indwells to make that relationship happen. This is why Jesus says he must leave that the Comforter may come and indwell in them, which is represented by the events of pentacost.

[shnarkle]

8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Q: Who is the First and Last?
A: God.

If God is the first and last and also died and came to life again isn't that Jesus.


How does anyone get around this scriptural interpretation?

Taking a characteristic of YHVH God and applying it to Jesus in writing does not make Jesus God. All it proves is the writer of the book of Revelation considered Jesus to be God.

The problem I see with this idea is that the Old Testament texts indicate that God is "incomparable". There is "none beside me"; "no God beside me". These and other texts point out the transcendence of God; God is synonymous with transcendence. However God's characteristics reveal only characteristics of God and God's characteristics are not God. To be accurate they aren't even characteristics of God because transcendence has no characteristics other than incomparablility. The book of Revelation points out that Jesus is "the word of God" which isn't God either. The word of God is God's word, and God's word isn't God. You say words, but your words are not who you are. They're just your words.

Paul does similar things by lifting and twisting verses from Isaiah, meant for YHVH only, and applying them Jesus. (bowing to the name of, etc.)

To bow to the name means to yield to his authority, and there is nothing that says God cannot delegate authority to whoever God wishes. It doesn't seem like a bad choice to delegate some of Gods' authority to his messiah, does it?

But writing something does not in and of itself establish the truth of what is written.

Writing doesn't establish the existence of what is written or referred to. When dealing with transcendence the word has no referent. By definition, these words can't refer to anything that actually exists. The authors knew this which is why they went to the trouble of pointing it out.

[shnarkle]

8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Q: Who is the First and Last?
A: God.

If God is the first and last and also died and came to life again isn't that Jesus.


How does anyone get around this scriptural interpretation?

Taking a characteristic of YHVH God and applying it to Jesus in writing does not make Jesus God. All it proves is the writer of the book of Revelation considered Jesus to be God.

Paul does similar things by lifting and twisting verses from Isaiah, meant for YHVH only, and applying them Jesus. (bowing to the name of, etc.)

But writing something does not in and of itself establish the truth of what is written.

And I would ask our JW friends, (since they regard the writings of John and Paul so highly) doesn't this prove that John and Paul thought of Jesus as God? Sure, neither of them came right out and said "Jesus is God", but they may as well have. They did so indirectly. Though, admittedly they both provide verses which contradict this notion as well. (John 17.3, for example)

I'm not speaking for JW's here by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't agree with much of what they believe concerning Jesus. To point out that neither John or Paul state that Jesus is God some how suggests that they might as well be saying he's God doesn't sound like an argument or any kind of proof that Jesus is God. I don't even see it as indirectly suggesting it either.

I think where this becomes a problem is in assuming that God is synonymous with existence. The reason I find this to be a problem is because God is synonymous with transcendence, therefore transcendence transcends existence. Paul explicitly comes right out and defines God as the origin of all that exists, and the origin of existence isn't existence.

Where it becomes really difficult is when we look at existence as being eternal because eternity doesn't seem like anything that can be transcended, and even if this is the case, it isn't just eternity we're dealing with, but eternal existence, and just because eternal existence may have no beginning or end doesn't mean that existence has no origin. This is what Paul points out in his expansion of the Shema.

Now there is no effective difference between origin and beginning because the origin or beginning of anything is effectively the same, but the introduction to John's gospel points out that everything that is created is at or after "the beginning". Given that the word as well as the origin of the word aren't things, and they exist, it stands to reason that they have no beginning or end, and the book of Revelation confirms this idea by pointing out that Christ is "the word of God". Again, whatever words may proceed from my mouth aren't who I am. They're simply my words.

My point is that Paul gets around referring to Jesus as God by pointing out that the origin of existence is God, and need never be conflated with the means of existence which is Christ.

[shnarkle]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 316#919316]Replying to post 8 by Elijah John[/url

But writing something does not in and of itself establish the truth of what is written.

It does establish what is written though, and this is important when some see something that isn't written in what is written. For example, when Paul says that Jesus is the son of God, that means that Jesus is the son of God, it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus is God; just God's son. When Paul defines God as the origin of all that exists, this also distinguishes God from Christ.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by shnarkle]

If God is incomparable how can we relate to God? How can the word (as I try to understand your position) even begin to do its job to tell me about God if God is incomparable?

Relationships are through relating, or being relational. Paul points out that God is the origin of everything that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists. We are what exists. We are what is created from God by the word of God which is Christ. God's image is stamped upon us. We are created in God's image which immediately gives us a relationship with God. The word "image" in the Greek is "iekon" which is where we get the word "Icon". We are all icons of God which isn't to say that we are God, but symbols of God. Christ is the penultimate image though; a perfect image of God. Christ invites us to become part of that relatinoship he has with transcendence through the spirit which indwells to make that relationship happen. This is why Jesus says he must leave that the Comforter may come and indwell in them, which is represented by the events of pentacost.

Yes but now you are arguing against yourself or having it both ways. You say God is incomparable in post 4 but that you can relate to God in post 13. That is illogical.

We have a very simple title for God, the first and the last, in Isaiah and that title is repeated about the guy who died and came to live. It's logic101.

* I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
* These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by tam]

God did not die and come to life again, so this cannot be speaking about God.

God being the First and the Last does not mean that Christ is not also the First and the Last (except with regard to His Father).

He is certainly the First and the Last (only) begotten Son. I can think of other things as well.

This verse is speaking about Christ, not about His God (and Father).

We have a very simple title for God, the first and the last, in Isaiah and that title is repeated about the guy who died and came to live.

* I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
* These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

Think about what you are implying in your reply. You are implying that the same title can have two different meanings when you want them to. With that reasoning you can choose to read even this line how you wish, 'apart from me there is no God' to include all the G O D Gods as well. The all caps Gods. It becomes arbitrary where you pick and choose what you want to reinterpret.

Can you understand that?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by shnarkle]

If God is incomparable how can we relate to God? How can the word (as I try to understand your position) even begin to do its job to tell me about God if God is incomparable?

Relationships are through relating, or being relational. Paul points out that God is the origin of everything that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists. We are what exists. We are what is created from God by the word of God which is Christ. God's image is stamped upon us. We are created in God's image which immediately gives us a relationship with God. The word "image" in the Greek is "iekon" which is where we get the word "Icon". We are all icons of God which isn't to say that we are God, but symbols of God. Christ is the penultimate image though; a perfect image of God. Christ invites us to become part of that relatinoship he has with transcendence through the spirit which indwells to make that relationship happen. This is why Jesus says he must leave that the Comforter may come and indwell in them, which is represented by the events of pentacost.

Yes but now you are arguing against yourself or having it both ways. You say God is incomparable in post 4 but that you can relate to God in post 13. That is illogical.

Not really. There is a relationship between comparable and incomparable which doesn't deny in the slightest the definition of incomparability. 'The transcendence doesn't negate the ability to relate to the icon which is the revealed God of the bible. Again, it can't be overstated that the revealed God is the icon wherever or however it is manifested. The icon can never be God. it is quite simply the icon of God. It's a symbol, and by definition, a symbol is a substitution. The symbol signifies, but can never signifiy itself.

We have a very simple title for God, the first and the last, in Isaiah and that title is repeated about the guy who died and came to live. It's logic101.

Sure, but to be accurate a title is a symbol, and in this case a symbol for transcendence, and transcendence has no referent. There is just the title or icon. That's logic 101. When you're driving down the road and you see a pedestrian crossing sign, the sign is not what you're looking for. You're looking for a crosswalk up ahead with people in it. The sign is being subsituted. It signifies people in a crosswalk, it isn't actually people in a crosswalk. In our case with transcendence, the sign signifies nothing. There is no refernent for the sign.

* I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

This is exactly what Christ says of himself. "No one can come to the father except through me". One cannot return to the origin of existence except through existence. Why? Because you already exist. There simply is no other way to begin with.

[Overcomer]

It might help to look at just what the title "the First and the Last" means. It means that everything originated with God and everything will end with him. The titles of God ALWAYS speak to one of his attributes; in this case, it speaks to his eternality. It's the equivalent of saying that he has always existed and always will exist. Titles are not merely symbolic. They testify to the very essence or nature of God. They explain who he is.

God speaks of his eternality in the Book of Isaiah: "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god" (Is. 44:6).

The last line is key -- God is the one and only God. There are no others.

But then we come to the Book of Revelation where Jesus is called the First and the Last in several verses. If God and only God is the First and the Last, and if there is only ONE God and no others, then non-Trinitarians should have a problem with Jesus bearing the exact same title as God with the understanding that Jesus himself is eternal.

This, of course, is the problem that the Pharisees had every time Jesus made it known that he was God. They accused him of blasphemy for doing so (Matt. 26:65; Luke 5:21; John 10:33, for example).

When we read in Rev. 2:8, that the First and the Last died but rose again, we know that it is speaking of Jesus. And if Jesus bears the title of the First and the Last, that means he is eternal.

And with the Holy Spirit also being eternal (Heb. 9:14: How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!), then we are left with three eternal beings -- but still there is only one God.

So how do we make sense of it all? We recognize that God is a Trinity. As such he is one Being who exists in three persons who are co-eternal.