JW's - Proving to JW's that Jesus is God

[Catholic_Dude]

Over whelming evidence for the Trinity? Not really.

I do see a few scriptures that are somewhat ambiguous and hard to understand that have lead to some confusion. I can understand the confusion for some people.

But, saying the evidence of the Trinity is overwhelming is really stretching it beyond reasonability.

Several other sources would agree with me also:

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

If the evidence was overwhelming, I wouldn’t expect “long controversies”… it would have been clear cut.

Steve

Steve, this is no offense to you, but us Catholics take caution when we see strings of quotes like these. Protetsants regularly cut and paste stuff like this, so I usually do a google to check on them. It turns out I found a Catholic Article that talks about these very quotes:
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp

All I ask is for fairness, and what I mean is that for any quotes I ask for a link to an online source so I can read it in context, that way it is fair for both sides, it is nothing less than what I strive for when posting quotes. Us Catholics have been burned too many times by Protestants presenting unverifiable information.

 

[BibleSteve]

Steve, this is no offense to you, but us Catholics take caution when we see strings of quotes like these. Protetsants regularly cut and paste stuff like this, so I usually do a google to check on them. It turns out I found a Catholic Article that talks about these very quotes:
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp

All I ask is for fairness, and what I mean is that for any quotes I ask for a link to an online source so I can read it in context, that way it is fair for both sides, it is nothing less than what I strive for when posting quotes. Us Catholics have been burned too many times by Protestants presenting unverifiable information.

Dear Catholic Dude,

Absolutely, I understand and appreciate your point. I also am very thankful to have this link and be able to read through a thoughtful analysis without too much anti-JW bashing.

Please note these quotes were provided to question whether the evidence of the Trinity was “overwhelming”, not whether the people quoted believed the Trinity.

The topic of the Trinity was the source of much controversy, over many years, and was based on “hundreds of years of reflection” as one of the articles mentioned.

I wouldn’t refer to this as “overwhelming evidence”. Quite to the contrary, I think those thinkers meditated themselves a little too far down the slippery slope, and started inserting Greek ideas to described things which were not “explicitly” explained in Scripture.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response,

Steve

 

[BibleSteve]

In other words, if Nebuchadnezzar is the “king of kings” in Dan. 2:37 and Jehovah is the king of kings in 1 Tim. 4:16 and if Othniel is a savior in Judges 3:9 and Jehovah is a savior in Is. 43:11 and if Cyrus is a shepherd in Isaiah 44:28 and Jehovah is there anything that makes Jehovah’s titles unique?

Good Question…

As noted in the various examples, many titles throughout the Bible are shared with others. Thus, title matching doesn’t work.

The only Title that Jehovah God holds that no one else does is “Almighty God”.

Steve

 

[Bishopite]

Over whelming evidence for the Trinity? Not really.

I do see a few scriptures that are somewhat ambiguous and hard to understand that have lead to some confusion. I can understand the confusion for some people.

But, saying the evidence of the Trinity is overwhelming is really stretching it beyond reasonability.

Several other sources would agree with me also:

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

If the evidence was overwhelming, I wouldn’t expect “long controversies”… it would have been clear cut.

Steve

Within Scripture, implicit evidence is as true as explicit evidence and Mckenzie or Geisler or any other Protestant theologian would wholeheartedly affirm implict truth as being as true as explicit truth. This is even true within our secular laws, Attorneys use implict evidence to prove a case (known as circumstantial evidence) when the direct evidence isn’t there. An example:
If I drive to the mountains to my cabin at night and I can see the roads, houses and trees are all clear without and trace of snow, yet when I wake up in the morning I look out of the window and see snow is on all of them, circumstantial evidence shows me that it snowed.
The same is true about the word Trinity, it is a word explaining a theological truth and if the word isn’t in the Bible doesn’t make it false; no more than the word “Bible” being a false word since it isn’t in the Scriptures either. The word Trinity (triunitos means three in one in Latin) or (Homoosius means "of the same substance in Greek) is a word that describes a truth and it is the Catholic church who guides us into all truth (1 Tim 3:15) and history attests to its inception as the church Jesus founded; even secular history affirms this…

“The Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (see terminology below) is the Christian church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI. It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus Christ and led by the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

And long controversies are the product of the waywardness of the human nature. Since the begining of the church there have been a plethora of controversies; everything from arianism, gnosticism, monphysitism, montheleticism, donatism, modalism, pelagianism et al those who heterodox in their theology.

 

[BibleSteve]

No offense, but you either read the wrong books or misunderstood because you made previous comments like the following: “just look at scriptures that obviously show them to be different persons”. What you are describing is the modalist/Sabellian heresy because your comments indicate we Catholics believe the Son and Father are the same person (we dont). They are two distinct persons, so your comments tell me you have been misinformed.

Then let’s make it simplier… My point is that Jesus is not Jehovah God as explicitly seen in Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

Psa 110:1-5 shows Jehovah God talking to Jesus. Can you please give me any other example in life, where a sentence like this would be understood to mean that Jesus is Jehovah God? Please insert other personal names into the sentence to explain.

Acts 3:13 Same question. Please give me a real world example (inserting other names) where Jehovah would glorify his servant Jesus.

Thank,

Steve

 

[ABostonCatholic]

If the evidence was overwhelming, I wouldn’t expect “long controversies”… it would have been clear cut.

Don’t be so naive. Something can have overwhelming evidence and there still be long controversies. Some people are still arguing over whether or not the Bible really condemns homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean that the evidence isn’t clearly there.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dear Catholic Dude,

Absolutely, I understand and appreciate your point. I also am very thankful to have this link and be able to read through a thoughtful analysis without too much anti-JW bashing.

Please note these quotes were provided to question whether the evidence of the Trinity was “overwhelming”, not whether the people quoted believed the Trinity.

The topic of the Trinity was the source of much controversy, over many years, and was based on “hundreds of years of reflection” as one of the articles mentioned.

I wouldn’t refer to this as “overwhelming evidence”. Quite to the contrary, I think those thinkers meditated themselves a little too far down the slippery slope, and started inserting Greek ideas to described things which were not “explicitly” explained in Scripture.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response,

Steve

Steve-

I’ll add this…“overwhelming” was probably an unfortunate choice of words by an e-pologist.

That aside, the Church did ultimately arrive at the correct understanding of the nature of God and did so infallibly.

As you know, all sides got a hearing, but in the end, the Holy Spirit led the Church to a trinitarian formula which is our best understanding of God’s nature.

This is in keeping with Christ’s promise that the Spirit would lead the Church into all truth.

And after several hundred years of reflection, the Church was able (as we are today) to spot those verses of scripture in which the trinity was hiding in plain view all along. From our current vantage point, they do appear overwhelming…kinda makes you wonder what took those early Fathers so long. But if we see further, it is because we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. :tiphat:

 

[BibleSteve]

The “Alpha and Omega” “beginning and end” “first and the last”, etc titles are very significant, they all mean the same thing and are a reference to omnipotence and eternity.

It is very easy for people to get confused who is talking throughout the book of Revelation because of what Rev 1:1, and Rev 22:16 show.

Jehovah God gave a message for Jesus to communicate. Jesus took the message and gave it to his angel to communicate. It was the angel who did all the talking throughout the entire book. The angel was speaking in first person for Jesus and in first person for Jehovah God. Certainly the angel wasn’t Jesus. And likewise, Jesus as the spokesman for his Father doesn’t make him Jehovah.

Couple this “chain of communication” with ambiguous references to whom the angel is talking for (himself, Jesus, Jehovah God).

Specifically on the title of “Alpha and Omega”:

These are the names of the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet and are used as a title three times in the book of Revelation. The additional occurrence of this phrase in the King James rendering of Revelation 1:11, however, does not receive support from some of the oldest Greek manuscripts, including the Alexandrine, Sinaitic, and Codex Ephraemi rescriptus. It is, therefore, omitted in many modern translations.

While many commentators apply this title both to God and to Christ, a more careful examination of its use restricts its application to Jehovah God. The first verse of Revelation shows that the revelation was given originally by God and through Jesus Christ, hence the one speaking (through an angelic representative) at times is God himself, and at other times it is Christ Jesus. (Re 22:8) Thus Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God “Jehovah God,” NW], who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here ... There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.”

The title occurs again at Revelation 21:6, and the following verse identifies the speaker by saying: “Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in his Kingdom as “brothers,” not “sons,” the speaker must be Jesus’ heavenly Father, Jehovah God.—Mt 25:40; compare Heb 2:10-12.

The final occurrence of the title is at Revelation 22:13, which states: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” It is evident that a number of persons are represented as speaking in this chapter of Revelation; verses 8 and 9 show that the angel spoke to John, verse 16 obviously applies to Jesus, the first part of verse 17 is credited to “the spirit and the bride,” and the one speaking in the latter part of verse 20 is manifestly John himself. “The Alpha and the Omega” of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God. The expression, “Look! I am coming quickly,” in verse 12, does not require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch as God also speaks of himself as “coming” to execute judgment. (Compare Isa 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for judgment on the part of Jehovah and his “messenger of the covenant.”

The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.

 

[BibleSteve]

Steve-
As you know, all sides got a hearing, but in the end, the Holy Spirit led the Church to a trinitarian formula which is our best understanding of God’s nature.:

I understand there was a hearing. However, I question whether it was a fair hearing, or whether it was settled by Holy Spirit or with violence. My studies regarding Athanasius and how he imposed his views on others is concerning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

“Some modern historians suggest that the tactics of Athanasius were a significant factor in his success. He did not hesitate to back up his theological views with the use of force. In Alexandria, he assembled a group that could instigate a riot in the city if needed. It was an arrangement "built up and perpetuated by violence.”[12] Along with the standard method of excommunication he used beatings, intimidation, kidnapping and imprisonment to silence his theological opponents. Unsurprisingly, these tactics caused widespread distrust and led him to being tried many times for “bribery, theft, extortion, sacrilege, treason and murder.[13] While the charges rarely stuck, his reputation was a major factor in his multiple exiles from Alexandria. **He justified these tactics **with the argument that he was saving all future Christians from hell. Athanasius stubbornly refused to compromise his theological views by stating, “What is at stake is not just a theological theory but people’s salvation.”[14] He played a clear role in making the Constantinian shift a part of the theology of the church.”

Also, I’m concerned over information like this:

“Throughout most of his career, Athanasius would be haunted by allegations of defiling an altar, selling Church grain that had been meant to feed the poor for his own personal gain, and for suppressing dissent through violence and murder.[9] It cannot be claimed, beyond all doubt, if any or all of these specific allegations were true, but Athanasius almost certainly employed violence when it suited his cause or personal interests,[10] and his administration of the Alexandrian see has even been likened to an “ecclesiastical mafia”.[11] Serious questions also surround the reliability of his historical accounts. Athanasius seems to have severely misrepresented his own life and events, in order to warp the truth behind his own actions, and those of his enemies; especially when discussing his theological opponents, the Arians.”

Also, it seems curious this “Trinity” doctrine was demanded and enforced with the threat of death (burning at the stake) and eternal damnation from the time of Athanasius until the late 1600’s.

I wonder if this Trinity doctrine the result of direction by the Holy Spirit, or the violent iron will of a man bent on having his own way?

Lastly, I wonder about burning people at the stake for questioning the Trinity doctrine…

This seems outside what I’d expect for the leading of the Holy Spirit and Jesus command to “love your enemies and pray for them”?

Can you understand my concern over this?

Steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dear Catholic Dude,

Absolutely, I understand and appreciate your point. I also am very thankful to have this link and be able to read through a thoughtful analysis without too much anti-JW bashing.

Please note these quotes were provided to question whether the evidence of the Trinity was “overwhelming”, not whether the people quoted believed the Trinity.

The topic of the Trinity was the source of much controversy, over many years, and was based on “hundreds of years of reflection” as one of the articles mentioned.

I wouldn’t refer to this as “overwhelming evidence”. Quite to the contrary, I think those thinkers meditated themselves a little too far down the slippery slope, and started inserting Greek ideas to described things which were not “explicitly” explained in Scripture.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response,

Steve

By the way, Steve, I DO happen to own a copy of McKenzie’s **Dictionary of the Bible. **Do you?

I hope you’ll take a close look at the article that Catholic Dude referred you to…they discuss McKenzie’s presentation of the Trinity in much greater detail than the small quotation you provided.

We can spend more time on this once you’ve finished reading…

 

[BibleSteve]

By the way, Steve, I DO happen to own a copy of McKenzie’s **Dictionary of the Bible. **Do you?

I hope you’ll take a close look at the article that Catholic Dude referred you to…they discuss McKenzie’s presentation of the Trinity in much greater detail than the small quotation you provided.

We can spend more time on this once you’ve finished reading…

Actually, I DO have a copy of this, but it’s packed away in a box in a storage shed due to a recent move. It will be a while before that box see’s the light of day. I have a very large library of reference books from all different non-JW religions (50 Translations, Lexicons, Dictionaries, Concordances, Hebrew and Greek Interlinears, Commentaries, etc.)

Steve

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.

If “the first and the last” carries the same thought as “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the beginning and the end” explain to us how Jesus, in Rev. 1:17-18 can be the First and the Last…who became dead?" Don’t you contend that you believe that Jehovah is also the first and the last in Rev. 22:13?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Also, about Jesus being God, notice this from Colossians, and please, please, please, meditate on it and ask God to have the Holy Spirit reveal to you it’s richness. From Colossians
chapter one, verses 15-19, Revised Standard Version:

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation ((This means that the Word became man. As human beings are the crowning glory of all God’s creation, and Jesus, being the divine/human Man, he is the Pre-Eminent Man of all time and thus “firstborn” or ruler of all creation with absolute rights))**** FOR IN HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED, IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH, visible and invisible, whether thones or dominions or principalities or authorities, ALL things were created through him and FOR HIM ((that means ALL things, including all the archangels, angels, thrones, principalities, powers, the material world, animals, man, ALL without exception were created FOR JESUS and BY him)).
He is before all things and in him all things are held together.
He is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead ((note that Jesus was not the first person, numerically speaking to receive a resurrection in scripture)) that in **everything ******he might be pre-eminent. ((NOW NOTE THIS: For in him ALL THE FULNESS OF GOD WAS PLEASED TO DWELL. ((Even while he was a man on earth!!)).

What is especially important in this passage for meditation, I believe is the statement that IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. That means the entire created order, from archangels and angels, the cosmos, man, down to the lowest atom, are held in existence always by the power of the Word Himself, Jesus Christ. He wasn’t just a junior-partner to God back at the time of the original creation, but ALL THINGS ARE HELD TOGETHER BY HIM. Ponder this please, it is very important. The great mystery of this is that it never STOPPED being LITERALLY TRUE for even one split second. It means that even as a teeny weeny fetus in his mothers womb, Jesus Himself was holding all things in the universe together. Ponder that. Let the Word sink into your minds and hearts about that. Pray about that. Even as a fertilized egg in his mothers womb, Jesus the Word was still holding the entire cosmos in existence by his almighty power. Never did he stop doing so, even while his body laid lifeless in the cold dark tomb. Please pray and ponder over this, all of you who doubt the Deity of Christ. God, if you let Him, will cause the profound mystery of this deep truth to penetrate your hearts and minds revealing to you just HOW GLORIOUS Jesus really IS.

God bless you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Claude_Kenneson]

Good Question…

As noted in the various examples, many titles throughout the Bible are shared with others. Thus, title matching doesn’t work.

The only Title that Jehovah God holds that no one else does is “Almighty God”.

Steve

In Is. 9:6 Jesus is called Mighty God, but there are passages that also call Jehovah mighty. Job 36:5; Deut. 10:17; Neh. 8:32; etc. Is that supposed to minimize Jehovah’s might? If not, why should Jesus’ might be less than that of Jehovah? Rev. 5:13 “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power for ever and ever!” The four living creatures said, ‘Amen,’ and the elders fell down and worshiped.’ "

Equal praise; equal honor; equal glory; equal power; equal worship.

 

[allischalmers]

“I AM” are the same words that God used when he told Moses who he was in Exodus

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, I DO have a copy of this, but it’s packed away in a box in a storage shed due to a recent move. It will be a while before that box see’s the light of day.

Cool!

Then, Let’s review the passage you quoted.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Since you have McKenzie’s book, you should be able to verify for yourself the veracity of the following:

[Your quote makes] it appear that McKenzie is saying two things: (1) the Trinity isn’t a biblical doctrine and (2) it originated in Greek philosophy rather than in Scripture. Yet McKenzie doesn’t say either.

Consider his comment that the Trinity isn’t “explicitly and formally a biblical belief.” This means nothing more than that we won’t find the formula “three persons in one God” in the Bible in so many words. But the substance of the doctrine–the belief the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit possess the same divine nature–is taught in Scripture, and Fr. McKenzie affirms this.

He states: “The elements of the Trinity of persons within the unity of nature in the Bible appear in the use of the terms Father, Son, and Spirit . . . [The New Testament] offers no room for a statement of the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less properly on the divine level of being than another” (Dictionary of the Bible, 899-900).

What about the charge that the Trinity originated in Greek philosophy? McKenzie says the “elements of the Trinity of persons within the unity of nature in the Bible appear in the use of the terms Father, Son, and Spirit.” In other words, while the Bible doesn’t use philosophical language about the Trinity, it does teach the doctrine by the way it speaks of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Rather than claiming the Trinity originated in Greek philosophy, McKenzie asserts that two Greek philosophical terms, “person” and “nature,” were employed to elaborate and develop a doctrine taught by the Bible.

from “The Witnesses: Masters of Misquotation” By Mark Brumley
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Then let’s make it simplier… My point is that Jesus is not Jehovah God as explicitly seen in Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

Psa 110:1-5 shows Jehovah God talking to Jesus. Can you please give me any other example in life, where a sentence like this would be understood to mean that Jesus is Jehovah God? Please insert other personal names into the sentence to explain.

Acts 3:13 Same question. Please give me a real world example (inserting other names) where Jehovah would glorify his servant Jesus.

Thank,
Steve

You dont seem to understand the Trinity and the fact there is a Father and Son (and Holy Spirit) and WHY the Son came to earth, here is a powerful passage:5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6**Who, being in very nature God, **
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant, **
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself **
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. -Phil 2
Until you realize that the SON, Jesus, HUMBLED himself and took on a human nature (without abandoning His divine nature) and TOOK on a SERVANTS role…you will not understand the Trinity NOR those passages you keep pointing to. The Father is DISTINCT from the Son.

It is very easy for people to get confused who is talking throughout the book of Revelation because of what Rev 1:1, and Rev 22:16 show.

Jehovah God gave a message for Jesus to communicate. Jesus took the message and gave it to his angel to communicate. It was the angel who did all the talking throughout the entire book. The angel was speaking in first person for Jesus and in first person for Jehovah God. Certainly the angel wasn’t Jesus. And likewise, Jesus as the spokesman for his Father doesn’t make him Jehovah.

I fail to see what you are getting at. The words of Jesus are just as binding regardless of if a messenger angel is sent to tell it or not.

Couple this “chain of communication” with ambiguous references to whom the angel is talking for (himself, Jesus, Jehovah God).

Specifically on the title of “Alpha and Omega”:

These are the names of the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet and are used as a title three times in the book of Revelation.

While many commentators apply this title both to God and to Christ, a more careful examination of its use restricts its application to Jehovah God. The first verse of Revelation shows that the revelation was given originally by God and through Jesus Christ, hence the one speaking (through an angelic representative) at times is God himself, and at other times it is Christ Jesus. (Re 22:8) Thus Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God “Jehovah God,” NW], who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here ... There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.”

So far you make a fair claim.

(continued below)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(continued)

The title occurs again at Revelation 21:6, and the following verse identifies the speaker by saying: “Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in his Kingdom as “brothers,” not “sons,” the speaker must be Jesus’ heavenly Father, Jehovah God.—Mt 25:40; compare Heb 2:10-12.

I can agree the speaker there is the Father, but It is clear the King in Matt 25 is Jesus (v34) and those who receive an inheritance are not equal. The reference to “brothers” is the personal relationship, not a matter of equality (eg Jesus is the Shepherd and his people are the sheep).

The final occurrence of the title is at Revelation 22:13, which states: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” It is evident that a number of persons are represented as speaking in this chapter of Revelation; verses 8 and 9 show that the angel spoke to John, verse 16 obviously applies to Jesus, the first part of verse 17 is credited to “the spirit and the bride,” and the one speaking in the latter part of verse 20 is manifestly John himself. “The Alpha and the Omega” of verses 12-15, therefore, may properly be identified as the same one who bears the title in the other two occurrences: Jehovah God. The expression, “Look! I am coming quickly,” in verse 12, does not require that these aforementioned verses apply to Jesus, inasmuch as God also speaks of himself as “coming” to execute judgment. (Compare Isa 26:21.) Malachi 3:1-6 speaks of a joint coming for judgment on the part of Jehovah and his “messenger of the covenant.”

In this case the context is very clear who is doing the “coming”…none other than Jesus Himself. The fact you would have to turn to different books appears to be grasping at straws.7"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book."

12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. -Rev 22
The ONLY indication of who is talking here is Jesus (v 16). The ONLY reference to a “coming” is Jesus, and in fact this theme of Jesus as the one coming is very clear in Chapters 2-3 (infact the whole NT is involved with Jesus coming).

The title “the Alpha and the Omega” carries the same thought as “the first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” when these terms are used with reference to Jehovah. Before him there was no Almighty God, and there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.—Compare Isa 44:6.

Your case fails because “first and the last” is applied to Jesus TWICE.
17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. **I am the First and the Last. **18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. -Rev1

"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. -Rev2:8
For Jesus to even apply these names to Himself would be blasphemy according to your position.

 

[BibleSteve]

I can’t help but notice that all those who believe Jesus Christ is actually Jehovah God haven’t explained Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

Truth is not complex. Where else in life can you have two individuals talking to each other or about each other and people will insist that one is the other? Can anyone provide any example?

Notice the scripture says nothing about “God the Father” talking to “God the Son”, it says Jehovah was talking with Jesus, and Jehovah was glorifying Jesus.

Thus, Jesus is not Jehovah.

Steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can’t help but notice that all those who believe Jesus Christ is actually Jehovah God haven’t explained Psa 110:1-5 and Acts 3:13.

I can’t help noticing you have not responded to my post about McKenzie now that you have been caught red-handed quoting him out of context…