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?

[101G]

[Replying to post 74 by marco]

First thanks for the response, but I must disagree with all of your assessment. and here's why

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace".

#1. this child is called A. The mighty God. if you say that he is not the Mighty God, then you are not believing the scriptures, and are a none believer. B. this child is called the "EVERLASTING FATHER". notice "EVERLASTING" Father. C. this son is called Counsellor, or Comforter, as in the Spirit of Truth.

#2. this son is NOT "BORN", but GIVEN.

#3. only the Child is "BORN", which is flesh, but the Son is not Born, big difference.

I issue the same challenge as I did in the topic "Diversified Oneness". the Revelation 1:1 question, who sent "his" angel to John, and the angel himself tells us who sent him in Revelation 22:6.

so I ask you, who was it that sent his angel to John in Revelation 1:1 and in Revelation 22:6 the angel tell us who sent him?

so I'll be looking for your reply also.

I'm so sorry, friend, to have to disagree with you. As you learn more about the Scriptures and what they really are saying to us, you will see where you have misunderstood.

First of all, Jesus is referred to in Isaiah 9 as "mighty god." There are no capital letters in Hebrew, so "mighty god" doesn't necessarily mean THE one true God. Folks in Isaiah's day understood "god" to mean any powerful, influential person of authority. Jesus would be a "mighty god" without being God Almighty.

He is called "everlasting father" in the sense that he would give life to people, which a "father" is---a life-giver, is he not? Jesus is responsible for giving everlasting life to everyone who accepts his gift of the ransom. The Apostle Paul called himself a spiritual "father," because he led many people into the saving truth about Jesus. (See Philemon verse 10.)

Your point about the Son not being born escapes me.

You ask, "Who sent his angel to John?" That would be Jesus. But it was JEHOVAH, the God and Father of Jesus, that gave Jesus the revelation. Then Jesus presented John with the revelation through an angel. (Have you seen Revelation 3:12 where Jesus speaks of his God? Who would that be? Aha! Jesus has a God! He can't be God. Can you see?)

thanks for the response.

but I must disagree with your assessment here.

#1.it makes no difference in the Hebrew, but it do in English. and the translators got it right. in John 1:1c the term "god" there is signify the eternal Spirit, God in flesh, and here's how we can tell. Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand".

if "no god is "WITH" him and what you says is true, then John 1:1c is correct because no god could be God, nor with God as John 1:1b states. so John 1:1c as god is the one true God. so that's debunked.

#2. as the "everlasting father". that's good as to what you said, but 1 Timothy 6:16 TRUMPS all you said, and here's why. "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen".

now, if the Lord Jesus is the "ONLY ONE" with immorality, then where do that leaves the one whom you calls the FATHER?. see you lack here.

#3. "Then Jesus presented John with the revelation through an angel". so are you saying that Jesus sent the angel to John, if so you better read Revelation 22:6 again, for it said "the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done"

so are you saying that Jesus is the Lord God of the Holy prophets, which means the God of the OT, for there was holy prophets in the OT, is this what you're saying? yes or No.

[101G]

[Replying to post 80 by brianbbs67]

thanks for the reply, but you didn't address the Revelation 1:1 question, if you did I must have missed it. but will you answer it here please as to who sent "his" angel.

by that answer we can answer the Isaiah 9:6 scripture in one setting.

thanks in advance.

[brianbbs67]

Just you don't think I am adding to or taking from the word of God, here is a photo of the text I was able to copy verbatim.

IMG_0946 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 74 by marco]

First thanks for the response, but I must disagree with all of your assessment. and here's why

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace".

#1. this child is called A. The mighty God. if you say that he is not the Mighty God, then you are not believing the scriptures, and are a none believer. B. this child is called the "EVERLASTING FATHER". notice "EVERLASTING" Father. C. this son is called Counsellor, or Comforter, as in the Spirit of Truth.

#2. this son is NOT "BORN", but GIVEN.

#3. only the Child is "BORN", which is flesh, but the Son is not Born, big difference.

I issue the same challenge as I did in the topic "Diversified Oneness". the Revelation 1:1 question, who sent "his" angel to John, and the angel himself tells us who sent him in Revelation 22:6.

so I ask you, who was it that sent his angel to John in Revelation 1:1 and in Revelation 22:6 the angel tell us who sent him?

so I'll be looking for your reply also.

I'm so sorry, friend, to have to disagree with you. As you learn more about the Scriptures and what they really are saying to us, you will see where you have misunderstood.

First of all, Jesus is referred to in Isaiah 9 as "mighty god." There are no capital letters in Hebrew, so "mighty god" doesn't necessarily mean THE one true God. Folks in Isaiah's day understood "god" to mean any powerful, influential person of authority. Jesus would be a "mighty god" without being God Almighty.

He is called "everlasting father" in the sense that he would give life to people, which a "father" is---a life-giver, is he not? Jesus is responsible for giving everlasting life to everyone who accepts his gift of the ransom. The Apostle Paul called himself a spiritual "father," because he led many people into the saving truth about Jesus. (See Philemon verse 10.)

Your point about the Son not being born escapes me.

You ask, "Who sent his angel to John?" That would be Jesus. But it was JEHOVAH, the God and Father of Jesus, that gave Jesus the revelation. Then Jesus presented John with the revelation through an angel. (Have you seen Revelation 3:12 where Jesus speaks of his God? Who would that be? Aha! Jesus has a God! He can't be God. Can you see?)

thanks for the response.

but I must disagree with your assessment here.

#1.it makes no difference in the Hebrew, but it do in English. and the translators got it right. in John 1:1c the term "god" there is signify the eternal Spirit, God in flesh, and here's how we can tell. Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand".

if "no god is "WITH" him and what you says is true, then John 1:1c is correct because no god could be God, nor with God as John 1:1b states. so John 1:1c as god is the one true God. so that's debunked.

#2. as the "everlasting father". that's good as to what you said, but 1 Timothy 6:16 TRUMPS all you said, and here's why. "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen".

now, if the Lord Jesus is the "ONLY ONE" with immorality, then where do that leaves the one whom you calls the FATHER?. see you lack here.

#3. "Then Jesus presented John with the revelation through an angel". so are you saying that Jesus sent the angel to John, if so you better read Revelation 22:6 again, for it said "the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done"

so are you saying that Jesus is the Lord God of the Holy prophets, which means the God of the OT, for there was holy prophets in the OT, is this what you're saying? yes or No.

No, John 1:1c does NOT signify the eternal Almighty God, as I have explained (but you have not even given me the courtesy of considering it).

Jesus being the only one with immortality shows us that humans were not created immortal. Humans are mortal, and their souls die. Of course the Father, Jehovah, is immortal, but that is a given. That is, of course, understood by every conscious reasoning individual in the universe. Jesus alone being immortal refers to a comparison of himself with humans and angels.

NO, Jesus is not the LORD God of the Old Testament. The LORD God of the O.T. is YHWH, which the King James translators, and many others, translated as "Jehovah." Jesus calls this LORD God of the O.T. his God and Father, and the One who anointed him to be the Messiah. (See Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:18-21; John 20:17; Revelation 3:12.)

[101G]

[Replying to post 84 by onewithhim]

do you dispute 1 Timothy 6:16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen".

read the context it's the Lord Jesus who the apostle is speaking of.

Just think, only God have immortality, which IMMORTALITY means the ability to live forever; eternal life. now if JESUS is the ONLY ONE who have eternal life what do that means to you?. remember, he's the ONLY ONE.

[101G]

[Replying to post 84 by onewithhim]

I'm sorry to miss your answer, you said, "NO, Jesus is not the LORD God of the Old Testament. The LORD God of the O.T. is YHWH"

but the angel said that the Lord God of the holy prophets sent him in Revelation 22:6. so are you saying that Jesus did not send his angel then, is this correct? yes or no.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 84 by onewithhim]

do you dispute 1 Timothy 6:16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen".

read the context it's the Lord Jesus who the apostle is speaking of.

Just think, only God have immortality, which IMMORTALITY means the ability to live forever; eternal life. now if JESUS is the ONLY ONE who have eternal life what do that means to you?. remember, he's the ONLY ONE.

Yes, I know it is Jesus that is spoken of at ITimothy 6:16. I explained what that verse means, if you'd take time to read my posts. It doesn't say that "only God has immortality." It says that Jesus alone has immortality, above and beyond any HUMAN OR ANGEL.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 80 by brianbbs67]

thanks for the reply, but you didn't address the Revelation 1:1 question, if you did I must have missed it. but will you answer it here please as to who sent "his" angel.

by that answer we can answer the Isaiah 9:6 scripture in one setting.

thanks in advance.

This will obviously take more than one setting....

Ok, 1:1 references 1 John 5:20, Which still separates Father and son.

As to who sent the messenger, I am unsure of what you are referring. Ie, which John, which passage or book?

Edit...Ok, you meant rev. 22:6 and 16. It obviously reads God sent Jesus as his angel/messenger

[101G]

[Replying to post 87 by onewithhim]

I see you didn't read the bible. it make no difference, angel human or not, only means "ONLY". and fact is, Jesus is the ONLY one who have eternal life, which means he is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

that's plain and simple

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 80 by brianbbs67]

thanks for the reply, but you didn't address the Revelation 1:1 question, if you did I must have missed it. but will you answer it here please as to who sent "his" angel.

by that answer we can answer the Isaiah 9:6 scripture in one setting.

thanks in advance.

This will obviously take more than one setting....

Ok, 1:1 references 1 John 5:20, Which still separates Father and son.

As to who sent the messenger, I am unsure of what you are referring. Ie, which John, which passage or book?

Edit...Ok, you meant rev. 22:6 and 16. It obviously reads God sent Jesus as his angel/messenger

And another messenger also. If Christ has inherited the kingdom and sits at the right of God and is in charge of the Host, he surely can send an "angel" of any sort he desires.