Revelation 1:1?

[The_Catholic]

Someone told me that since Christ was given a “revelation” AFTER His resurection, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His servants” Revelation 1:1, then that therefore shows He’s not almighty God. Can anyone explain this?

 

[Della]

It means a revelation to Jesus Christ from God the Father given by Jesus Christ to John. That hardly means that Christ isn’t God Almighty, only that the Father has greater authority than the Son.

It’s like the authority among men, in a way. For example, our president has more authority in our government than a US senator, but that doesn’t mean the US senator is any less human than the president.

 

[jbuck919]

Della is in no sense wrong, but if I may be permitted to put it more simply, it is a revelation from Jesus Christ. I do think that rather resolves the issue.

Sometimes, without intending to insult anybody, I do have to wonder about the things people worry about.

 

[Fidelis]

The Navarre Bible comments as follows:

1. “The revelation of Jesus Christ”: The word in Greek is
   “apocalypses”, hence the name often given to this book of Sacred
   Scripture. Revelation always implies the unveiling of something
   previously hidden–in this case, future events. The future is known to
   God the Father (the Greek text uses the definite article, “the God”,
   which is how the New Testament usually refers to God the Father); and
   Jesus Christ, being the Son, shares in this knowledge which is being
   communicated to the author of the book. It speaks of “the revelation
   of Jesus Christ” not only because it has come to John from Christ but
   also because our Lord is the main subject, the beginning and end, of
   this revelation: he occupies the central position in all these great
   visions in which the veils concealing the future are torn to allow
   Light (Jesus Christ himself: cf. Rev 21:23; 22:5) to dispel the
   darkness.

Thus, the phrasing implies the Trinity, especially the divinity of Christ, in the sense that whatever One Person of the Holy Trinity knows, they all know. The message given to John, however, comes through Jesus Christ, the definitive Mediator between God and man.

 

[The_Catholic]

Della is in no sense wrong, but if I may be permitted to put it more simply, it is a revelation from Jesus Christ. I do think that rather resolves the issue.

Sometimes, without intending to insult anybody, I do have to wonder about the things people worry about.

I’m not “worried” about this verse jbuck. I just do not know how to answer it. So far I see no answers. The verse says that it was given to Jesus Christ by God, therefore, my friend says “Since God gave this revelation to Christ then Christ doesn’t know all things and cannot be almighty God.”

 

[LilyM]

It says ‘given to him to show to his servants’ - could this possibly mean ‘given to JOHN to show to God’s servants’ - is there anything in the original language that would preclude this interpretation?

Otherwise I would simply say - the persons of the Trinity are equal in dignity but do not all have the same tasks.

Rather like I am fully as human (with all the dignity due to human beings) with my parents, teachers etc, yet I don’t have the same tasks that they have, and defer to them in some things without losing any of that dignity.

It wasn’t, for example, the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit that were born in Bethlehem or died on the Cross.

 

[puzzleannie]

the answer has already been given here. This is the revelation from Christ to John, and is about Christ, that is, it completes divine revelation, which is Christ. Christ is the complete, entire revelation of God. The book, the bible, the OT and NT contains what can be written in language of human understanding about this revelation, but Christ IS God’s Revelation to human kind. Read the prologue to John’s Gospel again, then go back to the beginning of John’s record, the apocolypse or revelation.

 

[jbuck919]

I’m not “worried” about this verse jbuck. I just do not know how to answer it. So far I see no answers. The verse says that it was given to Jesus Christ by God, therefore, my friend says “Since God gave this revelation to Christ then Christ doesn’t know all things and cannot be almighty God.”

Yes, well, if all the posts here in the category of trying to offer a riposte to what a “friend” said were eliminated, I am convinced the bandwidth taken up by the collected forums would be reduced by at least half. What has you concerned is right up there with the Bible saying “there is no God” because there is a psalm where it is written “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” I can’t tell you what to do, but I would let it go.

 

[jbuck919]

Yes, well, if all the posts here in the category of trying to offer a riposte to what a “friend” said were eliminated, I am convinced the bandwidth taken up by the collected forums would be reduced by at least half. What has you concerned is right up there with the Bible saying “there is no God” because there is a psalm where it is written “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” I’d let it go.

 

[The_Catholic]

the answer has already been given here. This is the revelation from Christ to John, and is about Christ, that is, it completes divine revelation, which is Christ. Christ is the complete, entire revelation of God. The book, the bible, the OT and NT contains what can be written in language of human understanding about this revelation, but Christ IS God’s Revelation to human kind. Read the prologue to John’s Gospel again, then go back to the beginning of John’s record, the apocolypse or revelation.

I know man, I agree with this, of course. But I just can’t realy explain it well, not yet. And when I say this to my friend, such as "it was just Christ’s role and not the Spirit’s or Father’s, he says “But it shows that Christ didn’t ‘know’ the revelation. It was ‘given’ to him by God. If Christ was God, he would have known ALL things. And this was AFTER the resurection therefore Christ was in his glorified body and if he was God then by that time he should’ve known ALL things as God does.”

See what I mean?

 

[The_Catholic]

Yes, well, if all the posts here in the category of trying to offer a riposte to what a “friend” said were eliminated, I am convinced the bandwidth taken up by the collected forums would be reduced by at least half. What has you concerned is right up there with the Bible saying “there is no God” because there is a psalm where it is written “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” I can’t tell you what to do, but I would let it go.

I promise you man, with all of my heart and as GOD Almighty, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit, as my witness, I am truly and sincerely not worried about this and that it is in fact one of my best friends who I have been talking with alot lately on spiritual matters. I’m only trying to understand better so that’s why I’m in here talking with you guys.

He wrote me an article about these things. I wish there was a way I could show it to you guys without rewriting it myself. Is there?

 

[LilyM]

I promise you man, with all of my heart and as GOD Almighty, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit, as my witness, I am truly and sincerely not worried about this and that it is in fact one of my best friends who I have been talking with alot lately on spiritual matters. I’m only trying to understand better so that’s why I’m in here talking with you guys.

He wrote me an article about these things. I wish there was a way I could show it to you guys without rewriting it myself. Is there?

Usually you can copy and paste from emails (may need to be cut into chunks if it’s long - or just give us edited highlights!) or if it’s a web link you can give that to us.

 

[The_Catholic]

I figured out how to transfer his article. So here it is.

You wrote: And I know that “theos” as used in St. John "And the Word was
“theos” can be explained as not Eternal God, as the same word is used refering
to Satan in “The god “theos” of this age.”
That’s a point I was going to make. The word Θε.ς (Theos) doesn’t always
mean Almighty God in both the new testament and the old (Septuagint). Here
are some examples:
.ν ο.ς . **θε.ς **το. α…νος το.του .τ.φλωσε (2 Cor. 4.4)
By whom the god of this age has blinded…
ΚΑΙ ε.πε Κ.ριος πρ.ς Μωυσ.ν λ.γων . .δο. δ.δωκ. σε **θε.ν **Φαρα. (Ex. 7:1)
And the Lord spoke to Moses saying: behold I make you god to pharoah
ο.χ. . …ν κληρονομ.σει σε Χαμ.ς . θε.ς σου , α.τ. κληρονομ.σεις ,
*Will you not inherit that which Chemosh your god has caused you to inherit? *(Judges.
11:24)
Ο ΘΕΟΣ .στη .ν συναγωγ. θε.ν , .ν μ.σ. δ. θεο.ς διακρινε. .
God stands in the assembly of gods, and in the midst of gods he will judge. (Ps. 82:1)

 

[The_Catholic]

.γ. ε.πα . θεο. .στε κα. υ.ο. .Υψ.στου π.ντες . (Ps. 82:6)
*I said, Ye are gods and all of you sons of the highest
*This verse is quoted by Jesus in the Gospel of John:
ï.ê .óôé ãåãñáìì.íïí .í ô. í.ì. .ì.í , .ã. å.ðá , èåï. .óôå ;
Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (Jn. 10:34)
.ôé ð.íôåò ï. èåï. ô.í .èí.í äáéì.íéá
for all the gods of the nations are demons (idols), (Ps. 96:5)
So what does John 1:1 mean?
ÅÍ .ñ÷. .í . Ë.ãïò , êá. . Ë.ãïò .í ðñ.ò ô.í Èå.í , êá. Èå.ò .í . Ë.ãïò .
*in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and God was the word. *(or
“the word was God”)
I would interpret this verse as: “the word was Godly” or “the word was Divine”
Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) say: “the word was a god.” I don’t like the expression “a
god” but they say it to bring out a point in the grammar of the greek. Let me quote John
1:1-2 word for word:
ÅÍ .ñ÷. .í . Ë.ãïò , êá. . Ë.ãïò .í ðñ.ò ô.í Èå.í , êá. Èå.ò .í . Ë.ãïò . 2
Ï.ôïò .í .í .ñ÷. ðñ.ò ô.í Èå.í .
*in beginning was the word, and the word was with The God, and God was the word, 2
This was in beginning with The God.
*Notice how it doesn’t say, “and The God is the word” or (for the sake of better english)
“and the word was The God.” There is a distinction in the text between “The God” and
“God”. One has the definite article “The” before the word “God” and the other doesn’t
have it. Often in greek when there is no definite article you have to insert “a” to have it
make sense. That’s why the JWs translate Èå.ò as “a god”. However, I don’t think this
is necessary because the word “God” could be qualifying “the word” or describing what
it is like. Therefore it would be understood as: “and the word was Godly/Divine/
Godlike…”

 

[The_Catholic]

But even if there was no distinction between definite article I wouldn’t interpret this
verse as saying that there was a distinct person in the beginning with God that was also
God and still distinct. “The word” is a personified concept much like wisdom is in
Proverbs chapter 8. At least that’s how I read it. To me it seems like an easier way to
understand this verse. The other option (namely, that there are two distinct persons
here and yet both of them are one God) I don’t understand anyways so it makes more
sense to me to read it in a way that I can understand it.
John 20:28:
κα. .πεκρ.θη Θωμ.ς κα. ε.πεν α.τ. . . Κ.ρι.ς μου κα. . Θε.ς μου .
*and Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and My God…
*I’ve heard some say that Thomas is using this expression like the way we use the
expression “Oh my God” when something amazing happens. Others say that he was
addressing Christ as “My Lord” and the Father as “My God”. As if to say: “Oh Jesus my
Lord and (as he turned his eyes towards heaven) My God.”
But even if we say that Thomas is calling Jesus God directly here, that still doesn’t
prove that Jesus was Almighty God. As I’ve shown in the beginning, Θε.ς doesn’t
always mean Almighty God. Even in the Gospel of John (10:34-35) itself Christ says the
Psalm writer “called them gods, unto whom the word of God came.” Psalm 82 was
written to men.
If God could make Moses god to pharoah (Ex. 7:1), surely he could make Jesus god to
Thomas also. But I’ve never heard anyone say that Moses was Almighty God and rightly
so.
John 8:58:
.μ.ν .μ.ν λ.γω .μ.ν , πρ.ν .Αβρα.μ γεν.σθαι .γ. ε.μι .
*Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.
*Some translators translate .γ. ε.μι as “I am he” meaning that he is the Christ.
There is other evidence the “I am” means “I am the Christ”:
πολλο. γ.ρ .λε.σονται .π. τ. .ν.ματ. μου λ.γοντες .τι .γ. ε.μι
*for many will come in my name saying: I am… *(Lk. 21:8)

 

[The_Catholic]

Now let’s look at the same passage in Matthew 24:5:
πολλο. γ.ρ .λε.σονται .π. τ. .ν.ματ. μου λ.γοντες , .γ. ε.μι . Χριστ.ς
*for many will come in my name saying: I am the Christ…
*Luke simply says many will come saying “I am” but Matthew says that they will say
“I am the Christ”. Therefore it seems clear to me that “I am” means “I am he” or “I am
the Christ”. Having said that, I would interpret the verse as saying: "Even before
Abraham came into being, I am he or I am Christ (being the pre-incarnate Divine Logos
{word, plan, decree of God} as described in John 1).
John 10:30:
.γ. κα. . πατ.ρ .ν .σμεν .
*I and the father are one.
*Later in the same Gospel, Jesus uses the same language:
.να π.ντες .ν .σι
*That they all may be one. *(Jn. 17:21)
Jesus is speaking to the disciples here. I’ve never heard anyone say that Peter is
Andrew or that John is James. It means that they should be united or be one in spirit as
Paul also says:
. δ. κολλ.μενος τ. Κυρ… .ν πνε.μ. .στι .
He who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)
Colossians 2:9
.τι .ν α.τ. κατοικε. π.ν τ. πλ.ρωμα τ.ς θε.τητος σωματικ.ς ,
*For in him dwells all the fullness of Deity in bodily form.
*But Paul also says to Christians in Ephesians 3:19:

 

[The_Catholic]

.να πληρωθ.τε ε.ς π.ν τ. πλ.ρωμα το. Θεο. .
*that you may filled up to all the fullness of God.
*So Paul encourages the Ephesians (who are not gods) to be filled up with all the
fullness of God as Christ was also. Therefore being filled with the fullness of God does
not mean that we should be God Almighty himself but that we should have the Holy
Spirit dwelling within us as Christ our example did also.
The phrase “Son of God”:
I’m sure you’ve heard that Jesus, angels and men are all called sons of God in the bible,
so I won’t go into that. But I would like to talk about the phrase “the only begotten son”:
. ìïíïãåí.ò õ…ò (Jn. 1:18)
ãåí.ò =genes, from which we get the english words: genes, generation, genesis. All
these words imply something that had a beginning.
The word begotten ( ãåí.ò ) here means one that was born, one that came into being, or
generated one. All implying that there was a time when Christ was born or came into
being. And if Christ came into being then he wouldn’t be eternal Almighty God.
Mark 2:3
*He is blaspheming, who can forgive sins but God alone?
*The scribes and the Pharisees say this, not Jesus or any apostle. The scribes
were wrong about many things so they could have easily been wrong about this also.
But let’s see what the crowds said after he healed the man proving that he could forgive
sins:
*They were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given authority to men. *(Mt. 9:8)
So Christ was given authority to forgive sins as he also says:
*All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth *(Mt. 28:18)

 

[The_Catholic]

God Almighty is given nothing but all things belong to him due solely to the fact
that he exists. Another point proving wrong the scribes notion that only God can forgive
sins and their assumption that he cannot give his authority to forgive to another is in this
verse:
*If you forgive the sins of any, they have been forgiven *(Jn. 20:23)
Many protestants have trouble with this verse, but the simple meaning of all these
passages is that God gave Christ the authority to forgive sins and Christ gave the
apostles authority to forgive sins. Were the apostles God? The scribes were clearly
wrong that only God could forgive sins.
Mark 13:32
*But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven,
neither the son, but the Father. *()
The simple way to take this verse is to say Jesus didn’t know something, so therefore
he can’t be Almighty God. Revelation 1:1 confirms this also:
*The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants…
*If God gave a revelation to Jesus then there must have been a time when he did not
know it.
Miracles
Many will point to Christ’s miracles as to proof that he was God. However, this is an
extremely weak argument because miracles such as healing the sick, raising the dead,
control over weather/nature, multiplication of food… were all performed by Old
testament prophets like Moses and Elijah. Besides Christ himself says to his apostles:
*Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me, the works I do shall he do also; and
greater works than these shall he do… *(Jn.14:12)
Other problems with the Trinity:
God cannot die so therefore Jesus wasn’t God Almighty because he died. There are
trinitarian explanations to these problems, but I think they are overly complex.

 

[The_Catholic]

*God cannot be tempted by evil *(Ja. 1:13) Jesus was tempted by the devil so he can’t be
Almighty God. And even if Christ had succumbed to the devil’s temptations can God
sin? I’ve heard that it is impossible for God to sin because sin is the transgression of the
law/will of God. God, therefore, cannot sin because the moment that he does “sin” it is
no longer sin because God himself did it according to his own will. And if Christ is God,
and cannot sin, than Christ, our example, has not been tempted in all things like us
because there was never a possibility that he could sin at all.
Another problem is the complete silence in the old testament (I would add the New
Testament also) regarding the trinity. If God ,who says that he is one in the the old
testament, but later reveals that he is really one God consisting of three distinct
persons, then God could seemingly reveal more hidden persons from his God-head in
the future.
In addition, most christians say that God is infinite. If God is infinite how can he be
limited to three persons? I think that it is easier to simply believe that our infinite
Almighty God is one, meaning that he is wholly unique and undivided in his existence.
Conclusion
I realize that there are explanations for all of these philosophical problems, and I would
read any reply you may have to them. My goal is not to start an argument over this with
anyone because I realize that there are fanatical people on both sides of this issue who
would condemn to hellfire (or capital punishment) anyone who does not agree with them
on this. My goal of this article is to show that I have biblical reasons for believing what I
have come to believe now. If I am wrong, I hope that God would open my eyes to my
error and that I would submit to his will.
I hope this article was fairly straight forward and easy to understand. I apologize for all
the greek quotes in it, but I thought that if you could see the words in greek itself you
could understand better where I am coming from. If made any mistakes in my scripture
quotes please let me know or if you want to discuss passages that I didn’t mention I
would be happy to. I want to add that I don’t understand everything in the scriptures or
everything concerning Christ in the scriptures. There are enough mysteries in the
scriptures as it is and to add another mystery (namely the trinity) just makes things more
confusing when the texts can be understood in a more simple way.
Thank you for being a good friend Jay. I hope to see you soon. God bless you.
Karl

 

[The_Catholic]

That’s it

I’d like to hear any responses to this please.