Is Jesus the Alpha and Omega

8/9/2019 Is Jesus the Alpha and Omega

1/24

What About The Alpha and

the Omega?By Jeffrey D. Dean, Sr.(This is a revised version of an earlier article)

Revelation 1: 8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the

beginning and the ending, says the Lord, which

is, and which was, and is to come, the

almighty."

In Revelation 1: 8 God (he who sits on the throne) calls

himself "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the

ending... the Almighty. Then in Revelation 1: 11,

Messiah calls himself "Alpha and Omega," the

beginning and the end. Was he identifying himself as

"he who sits on the throne?"

Revelation 1: 11 "Saying, I am Alpha

and Omega, the first and the last, and,

what you see write in a book, and send

it to the seven congregations which are

in Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna,

and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, andto Sardis, and to Philadelphea, and to

Laodicea."


2/24

That is Messiah here talking in Rev. 1: 11, there can be

no doubt, for in verse 17 he repeats, "I am the first and

the last," and then in verse 18 he says "I am he that

lives, and was dead:" So, we know of a certainty thatMessiah called himself Alpha and Omega, and the first

and the last, but he did not call himself "the beginning

and the end" here. However in Revelation 3: 14 Messiah

calls himself the "beginning of the creation of God,"

then in Revelation 22: 13 he calls himself the "beginning

and the end."

The people that say Messiah is God put forth the notionthat when Messiah called himself "Alpha and Omega,

the beginning and the end," he was calling himself God,

since God called himself by the same titles in Revelation

1: 8. You have to love their persistence, but I'm about to

show you how this cannot be true, because Revelation

clearly distinguishes between "he who sits on the

throne" and "the Lamb of God." First, lets discuss howGod and Messiah could both be called by these same

titles, and how, just because they both have the same

title, it doesn't mean they are the same person.

To understand what Alpha and Omega and first and

last mean, we need only understand that God is doing a

work in the earth. He started it on day one of creation,

and He's going to finish it. Of course God is the Alphaand Omega of his work, the beginning and the ending,

but what about Messiah? How is he the beginning and

the ending of God's work on the earth? Well, if you

have to ask that you haven't been paying attention, and


3/24

you have never read your Bible! Messiah IS God's work

on the earth, and the culmination of His plan from the

very beginning to the very ending! Messiah said it when

he said in Revelation 3: 14, "the beginning of thecreation of God."

How can God be a part of the "creation?" God and

Messiah are both "Alpha and Omega," and "beginning

and the ending."

We know that God was talking in Revelation 1: 8 when

he said "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and theending," then he says "he which was, and is, and is to

come the Almighty." Also, in Revelation 1: 4 John says

"grace be to you and peace from him which is, and which

was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits

which are before HIS THRONE." Thus, John starts out

by talking about God almighty, continuing all the way

down to verse 11. If any one wants to dispute this, just

go get a King James Red Letter Edition. The words ofMessiah are all in red, and you will see that verse 1: 8 is

not in red. Thus, even the ancient scholars agree it's

God talking in verse 1: 8 and not Messiah.

Didn't Messiah call himself

God in Revelation 1: 11?The answer to the question is clear and a resounding,

NO! In Revelation 1: 8 God gives four titles for himself:

"Alpha and Omega,"


4/24

"The beginning and the ending,"

"He which is, and was, and is to come,"

"The Almighty."

Then, in other places in Revelation, Messiah uses two of

those same titles for Himself, "Alpha and Omega," and

"the beginning and the ending." So, because Messiah

uses two of the titles from verse 1: 8, everyone wants to

assume that the other titles apply, too, including "the

Almighty."

That's the strangest logic I've ever heard of. Here's howthis flawed logic works:

Fred is a boyscout, a lecturer, a band leader

and a football star. Bill is a boyscout, and a

lecturer. Bill is Fred's son. Bill must also be a

band leader, and a football star!

Just because God and Messiah are both Alpha andOmega and Beginning and Ending, does't mean they

are both "the Almighty!" In Revelation Messiah never

sits on the throne in Heaven! Revelation chapter 4

describes the throne, and it never mentions Messiah in

there.

Then in Revelation 5 it says:

Revelation 5: 1

"And I saw in the right hand of him

that sat on the throne a book written


5/24

within and on the backside, sealed with

seven seals."

The one that opens the book according to verse 5 is "theLamb of God, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah."

Revelation 5: 5

"And one of the elders said to me,

Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe

of Juda, the Root of David, has

prevailed to open the book, and toloose the seven seals thereof:"

The Lion, my friends, is Messiah! So, is Messiah sitting

on the throne? He's already got the book in his hand

then, and should open it any minute, right? WRONG!

Revelation 5: 7 "And he came and tookthe book out of the right hand of him

that sat upon the throne."

This is the most stark proof that Messiah is not God,

otherwise, God is taking the book from himself!

One more thing must be said about the titles "Alpha

and Omega, and beginning and ending." These aretitles of authority over the Earth. Messiah has been

given rulership over the earth even as we speak! When

a King hands over his authority on a matter to another,

that person becomes the King's authority. Wherever the


6/24

person who has been given the authority acts in this

authority, he acts in the King's stead, and is treated as if

the King himself were standing there! Right now,

Messiah has been given God's authority over the Earth!

1 Corinthians 15: 24- 27

"24 Then comes the end, when he

(Messiah) shall have delivered up the

kingdom to God, even the Father;

when he shall have put down all rule

and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, until he has put

all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be

destroyed is death.

27 For he has put all things under his

feet. But when he says all things are

put under him it is manifest that he is

excepted, which did put all things

under him."

The word, excepted, used here is the greek word

"ektos" which means "aside from," or "besides," or

"other than," or "someone else." It's saying here clearly


7/24

and with out mistake that Missia is "excepted" or is

"someone other than" God. They aren't the same.

1 Corinthians 15: 28

"28 And when all things shall be

subdued to him, then shall the Son also

himself be subject to him that putallthings under him, that God may be all

in all."

In light of all the overwhelming evidence, how doesanyone say that God and Messiah are the same person?

Messiah is right now reigning in God's stead on the

Earth, but there comes a day when he delivers the

kingdom back up to God, and he himself will be a

"subject" of the Lord of Heaven, God Almighty. How

can any of this happen if they are the same person?

Even if the titles of "Alpha and Omega," and "thebeginning and the ending" are titles reserved

exclusively for God Almighty (which they aren't) but if

they were, we've already learned that Messiah was "the

proxy of the Father, God." Messiah made it clear that

whenever he spoke, it wasn't his words, but God the

Father's. Therefore, even if Messiah had stood up in a

crowded room and said "I am the Lord God Almightyhear my voice this day and obey," Messiah still

wouldn't have been claiming to be God! Messiah

speaking words that only God should speak doesn't

prove he's God, it only proves that he was right when he


8/24

said, "the words I speak are not my own, but the

Father's who sent me."

This isn't that hard to understand! A child can see the

simple truth here being proposed. It takes a truly

"learned expert" to muddy up the waters and turn such

a simple truth into something so complicated that "no

one" can understand it anymore, then stand back and

declare, "of course you don't understand, it's a ....

myyyysssterrrry! God doesn't want us to understand

everything!"

Did God Become A Mortal?

I don't claim to be perfect. I only see the potential for

human perfection. I have captured a vision of sorts, and

I long for the realization of that dream. To see mankind

so filled with love and adoration for God, and for each

other, that they would never even consider doing

anything that would jeopardize their relationship with

Him, or that would do "harm" to another human being!

Yet, I can only envision this because of a man whom I

call Yeshua! This man, Yeshua, is the First Begotten

Son of God, and he lived and died to show me that it is

possible for a man to live just this way!

If this man was actually the Almighty, Living, One True

God, come down to earth in a fleshly body to "mingle"

with his lesser creatures, then that vision is shattered

forever. Shattered because his perfection was natural

for him. Shattered because his perfection brings no


9/24

promise to mankind, no hope of repeating it, no hope of

following him into his expression of pure love, for he is

God, perfect in love, perfect in holiness, and we are not!

Without the vision, (and without the hope of following

in his example), mankind has not truly been "changed"

(by having beheld him, in all of his glorious splendor)!

In which case, we have no hope of perfection, and the

best we can hope for is to "escape" the hell that is

waiting for all who sin against God! To many Christian

apologists, the best hope we have is of "rescue" from

ourselves. To the Trinitarians the perfection, therefore,remains uniquely his own, and beyond our puny grasp,

as long as we live!

What's more, if this man was not really a man, but God,

clothed in the flesh of a man, it means there is no real

oneness for any of us, seeing that the oneness he

possessed with the Father existed naturally for him,

(since they were supposedly the same person), and wemortal frail, decaying humans can never have the

expectation of experiencing the same connection with

the Father as he possessed. It means his promises to us

of "being one with him as he is one with the Father,"

(John 17: 21) were an elusive carrot, dangled before our

noses, but forever withdrawn should we reach for it.

How can we, who are born separate from God, everhope to connect with the Father in the same "oneness"

as Messiah was connected, seeing that the very Spirit of

God was Messiah's personal identity. We could never

identify with the Father in the way he did, if he was


10/24

indeed, the Father. Yet he promises us that we will be

one with the Father as he is one with the Father?

The reality of our communion with God falls far short

of the promises made of being "one" with the Father,"

and either Messiah was mistaken, making false

promises, has been seriously misquoted or otherwise

misunderstood, and or mistranslated when he said "you

shall be one with the Father as I am one with the

Father!"

If Messiah is God incarnate, the vision of some daywalking in the love of God, pure and Holy, dissipates

like a morning mist, for Messiah (being God, and God is

love) was pure love, undiluted and unfettered. We

could never, therefore, love as Messiah loved, for he IS

love. He is God, and we are not! Unless we someday

become "God in the flesh, Messiahs commands that

we love as he loved were unreasonable demands

made upon poor fleshly creatures and thoseunreasonable demands were echoed by the apostles

(who must have been all mad, themselves, urging us to

love as Messiah loved,), being that Messiah was

PURE love. It just makes no sense does it?

Let's be fair, though, perhaps this is just a

misunderstanding of terminology, a matter of

semantics! Perhaps those who seek to convince us

Messiah is God, also acknowledge that he was also a

man, and that while on the earth, in the flesh, he cast

aside his deity and walked truly as a man. I seem to


11/24

recall some making this argument, and these are the

scriptures they used:

Phillipians 2: 5-8

"5 Let this mind be in you which was

also in Messiah Yeshua

6 Who, being in the form of Yahweh

(God),thought it not robbery to beequal with God;

7 But made himself of no reputation,

and tookupon him the form of aservant, and was made in the likeness

of men;And being found in fashion as

a man, he humbled himself, andbecame obedient unto death, even the

death of the cross."

Those who maintain Messiah was once God, and

became a man, use these verses heavily. They interpret

it to mean that "even though Messiah was God, and

equal with God, he found himself made into the likenessof a man, and thus humbled himself, casting aside his

deity, and became a servant."

If this is true, and God became a man, then why would

those who interpret these verses this way become angry


12/24

if I say, "he was a man?" If Messiah said "I'm just a

man, I'm not God anymore, I'm a servant, I humble

myself, and I will submit myself to the death of a mortal

being, then why would anyone object to me repeatingit? If their interpretation is true, God became a man,

and left behind his Godhood, and denied it, then why

get angry when I deny it? I'm only following in

Messiah's example. If Messiah said that he and the

Father were two separate persons, why would anyone

get mad at us for saying so? Some might say, they were

two separate persons, but they were also "one." Yes,

and I've showed you a scripture that says that thosewho believe on Messiah are also one with the Father,

does that mean they too are "God come down to earth

in fleshly form?"

Even if Messiah were once God, (which he most

certainly wasnt, but if he were) the minute he became a

man, and presented himself to the world as a man, theneverything I've said so far still holds true and Messiah

was not God, but a man! Furthermore, why would

anyone insist on presenting Messiah to the world as

"God," when Messiah himself refused to acknowledge it

and presented himself as a man? If Messiah, the so

called man/God thought downplaying or ignoring his

deity was vital enough to his ministry, enough so that he

refused to acknowledge his Godhood at all while he wasalive, why do his "followers" not follow in his example,

and be equally diligent in casting aside his deity?

(Doing thus, they make a liar out of their own Christ)


13/24

Indeed, his earlier followers, the Apostles, evidently

must have decided it was important to not focus on the

supposed former Godly nature and identity of the

Messiah because they continued to refer to him as aseparate person as God! Look at Phillipians 2:9!

Phillipians 2:9

"Wherefore God also has highly

exalted him, and given him a name

above every name."

If the Apostle who wrote this believed that Messiah was

God, before he came a man, he is ignoring his Godly

nature in verse 9, for, if Messiah was God, he already

had a name above every other name, YHWH! (God).

Furthermore, the writer of this verse was speaking as if

God and Messiah were two different people by saying

"God also has highly exalted him."

We, therefore, have an example from the apostles

themselves which demand we refer to Messiah as a

man and refer to him as separate (and subordinate to)

the Father. Even if Messiah were God before he

became a man (which I do not believe the scriptures

teach), yet even if he WERE, it is irrelevant enough that

the Apostles continued to follow in Messiah's example,

focusing on the man, Yeshua, instead of his Godhood,

and continuing to speak of him as a man and not God!

When did the followers of Messiah decide to depart

from this example of down playing "Messiah the God,"


14/24

and continuing to focus on "Messiah the man?" I see

no scriptural evidence of this! Are we not to strive to

follow in his footsteps (and in the footsteps of the

apostles)?

This bears repeating: If Messiah were once God but

became a man, and refused to acknowledge being God,

but said continually, "I am the Son of man," insisting

on being a thought of as a mere man while he was on

this earth, and speaking of God as if he were someoneelse, there surely would have been a reason! The

prudent thing for his followers to do would be to always

be responsible to make the distinction between Messiah

and God, the same distinction the Messiah himself

continually made?

The Apostles seemed to think that Messiah's refusal to

acknowledge his (supposed) former Godhood wasirrelevant. Irrelevant enough that they carried on

Messiah's tradition of presenting Messiah to the world

as a man raised from the dead. Are we that much wiser

than the Apostles, that we can somehow determine that

Messiah's refusal to acknowledge he was once

(supposedly) God was nothing more than sheer

humility? If it was merely humility that led him to do

this, one has to wonder, couldn't he have acknowledged,

"well, I once was God, but now I'm a man," and

retained his humility?


15/24

Shouldn't we preserve and honor Messiah's wish of

being thought of as a man? It's obvious, therefore, that

if Messiah were God, (which he was not, I'm just

humoring those who teach it, to drive home a point)Messiah would have known that he was actually God

(for God is all knowing), then he would have had to

have decided, at some point, that it was vital to his

message to cast aside his deity, and truly become "just a

man," and not just "pretend to be a man?" (Otherwise

hes a God in mans clothing and is deceiving mankind

the entire time he lived in Messiah!

According to the above quoted scriptures, not only did

Messiah "become" a man, he became "a manservant"

according to phillipians! Who are we, therefore, to

undo that decision he surely would have had to make, if

he was God? Who are we to now present him to the

world as God, seeing that he himself sought so hard to

not only present himself to the world as a mortal man,but went so far as to LITERALLY be a man, and thus,

die on the cross as a man? Aren't we undoing his

efforts to be thought of as a man? Worse yet, we are

calling him and the apostles liars when they said that he

cast aside his deity and became a manservant!

Either Messiah laid aside his deity or he didnt (and if

he didnt the writer of the Phillipian epistle is a false

witness, having testified that Messiah became a

manservant! Also, if we say he did not become a man,

truly, than we are saying he never really "died" as a


16/24

man, and if so, we have no sacrifice for our sins, the

whole thing was a "show."

We undo his entire ministry by saying he was not a

man, since his mission depended upon him being a man,

"even unto death." If he was "still" God, while he

walked the earth, he never clearly said so, and if he was

"no longer God, but a man," while he walked the earth,

(and this certainly would have to be true if he died for

us as a man), then who are we to countermand him, and

do what he himself obviously refused to do, which is

think of him, and teach him as God? If God shed hisdeity to became a man, then "by God," he was a man!

How dare anyone object if I call him a man? He called

himself a man! What arrogance is displayed by anyone

who contradicts him when he says, "I am a man and I

do not do my own works, but the works God has shown

me and commanded me to do!"

Questioning God's Ability To Become A Man

If an Almighty God decides to "become a man," as we

are told Phillipians teaches, how dare anyone say he

"failed" in the attempt, and remained God?" They are

highly presumptuous, therefore, to say he was really

God! An almighty God who sets out to become a mortal

man is going to succeed, he's going to be mortal! Whydo they insist on insulting Him by saying, "yes, well, but

he wasn't really a man, he was God?"


17/24

Trinitarians say that while Jesus was actually the

person of God, they quote the above letter to the

Phillipians which says that Messiah became a servant

in the likeness of sinful flesh! Yet, if Messiah were oncean almighty God (in person) but he left heaven, became

a lowly fleshly man, in order to be a servant he would

HAVE TO RELINQUISH HIS GODLY POWERS,

especially if he is GOING TO DIE for us, because the

Almighty God is eternal. So, the Trinitarians teach

clearly that even though Jesus was the PERSON of

God, when he came to earth he gave up his

GODLINESS and his GODLY POWER, which, indeedmakes him a man! Who then is doing the miracles of

Jesus, being that he (God) has given up his Godly

powers and become, not just a man but a servant of a

man? Either God gave up his Godly powers or he

didnt, both cannot be true!

If God says, "I became a man," who are you tocontradict him?

Are they afraid that to speak of him only as a man

would somehow be "dishonest?" If that's so, then they

are calling both Messiah and God dishonest, because

Messiah referred to himself as a man continually, and

referred to God as if he were someone else entirely, and

God spoke out of Heaven and testified of Messiah as aseparate person, as not God, but "the Son of God."

Finally, dear brethren, and herein lies the danger, if we

say Messiah was actually the Father, we are saying


18/24

Messiah wasn't "really" the Son of God, but was God

Himself.

1 John 2:23

"Whosoever denies the Son, the same

does not have the Father:"

1 John 4: 15

"Whosoever shall confess that Yeshua

is the Son of God, God dwells in him,and he in God."

1 John 5: 5

"Who is he that overcomes the world,

but he that believes theYeshua is theSon of God?"Notice these scriptures do not say "confess" or

"believe" that Jesus is God!

No matter how you slice it, even if Messiah were, at one

time God Himself, before he became flesh, (which I do

not believe) he did not lay claim to it, but instead said,"I am a man, I am a servant!" Who are we to say he

was not a man? Are we calling Him a liar? Are we

questioning God's ability to become mortal? Even if

they were armed with the rock solid evidence that


19/24

Messiah was God who became a man, (which they are

not) and could prove this without a doubt, (which they

can't), even still, Messiah's Godhood, prior to his

mortality would be completely irrelevant! (Being thathe laid that aside and became a servant).

If a man, who was once God, decided to leave aside his

deity and become a mortal man, his former status of

God is irrelevant, because now he is a man. Messiah is

depicted as a "has been God," by choice, the most he

can be is a "has been" and not an "I Am." According to

the Trinitarian heresy!

When they worship "Jesus" as God, the name of the

God they worship would not be "I Am" but "I was."

So, they say he "was" God, but we have a problem, the

name of the Almighty God is "I Am that I Am," not "I

Am that I Was," and certainly not, "I Was that I Was,"

and definitely not "I Was that I Am." Even those who

say that he was once God teach that he gave that up andbecame a man!

He called himself "the son of man," continually, so why

they get angry at me for doing the same? Why do they

call me an heretic? If I'm a heretic for referring to

Messiah as a man, then the Apostles were all heretics,

Messiah was a heretic, and yes even the great I Am is a

heretic by their dogmas and doctrines!

Phillipians 2: 5-9 never says that Messiah was once

God, but came down and fashioned himself as a man. It

said he was "in fashion" as a man! Someone, therefore,


20/24

fashioned him! He was a created being! Someone

created him, or fashioned him a man! That would be

the creator! I repeat, it doesn't say "he fashioned

himself as a man."

When it says he was "in the form of God," it's not

saying he was God, it's saying he was in "the image of

God!" We shall some day be remade in the image of

God too, because we will be in the "image of Messiah,"

does that make us God come down to earth? I don't

think so! It also says that, even though he was in the

very image of God, and though he was equal with God,being God's son, he humbled himself and became a

servant instead!

Hebrews 5: 5

"So Messiah glorified not himself to be

made an high priest; but He that said

to him, You are my Son, to day have Ibegotten you."

When was this said to Messiah?

Matthew 3: 16-17

"16 And Yeshua, when he was

baptized, went up straightway out ofthe water: and lo, the heavens were

opened to him, and he was the Spirit of

God descending like a dove, and


21/24

lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven saying,This is my beloved Son, in whom I am

well pleased."

Notice here that the Spirit of God descends on Messiah.

If he was the Spirit of God, he already possessed the

fullness of his own Spirit, and this demonstration was

merely a "show," and not real at all! If Messiah wasactually God, then God is evidently quite a showman,

and he appears to go out of his way to convince us of

things that are completely untrue! Namely, that God's

Spirit descended from Heaven and landed on Messiah,

for, if he was already God, he already possessed God's

Spirit in completeness, and did not need any of the

Spirit of God to descend upon him! Also, the voice from

Heaven was quite a "special effect," too, seeing that

God was standing there, right in front of them, being

baptized in water all along!

Did Isaiah Call Messiah Almighty God?

This is perhaps the most problematic scripture for

nontrinitarians in the Bible!

Isaiah 9: 6

"6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is

given: and the government shall be upon his


22/24

shoulder: and his name shall be called

Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the

everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Here in this verse it definitely appears to state clearly

that Messiahs name would be mighty God and

everlasting Father. First we must examine the

original word for mighty in this text. It is the Hebrew

word gibowwr or gibbor which denotes a

champion or warrior. We know that the great I

Am is not a champion. A champion, or warrior, issomeone who fights on BEHALF of a higher power or

authority. We know that there IS NOT higher power or

authority than God! This Hebrew word, when it was

translated DEMANDED that the OF should have been

placed in the phrase. It should read, The mighty of

God or the champion of God.

Lets look now at the phrase everlasting Father.

Indeed this phrase appears to be translated properly as

long as you have the PRECONCEIVED notion that

Messiah is God incarnate and that the Son is the

Father also! Take away this premise and it makes no

sense at all to use the literal sense of the word ab

(pronounced awb). It is very highly unlikely that the

original Torah uses the phrase everlasting Father inthe translation. It is more than likely it reads

everlasting chief, or chief everlasting (Which, as

you recall is another title of Messiah, the chief

cornerstone). The context here is a son being born,


23/24

the author would not turn around and call this son

everlasting FATHER. Clearly the translators

CHOSE to settle on the literal use of ab here because

they had a preconceived notion of Messiah and theFather being one in the same person! Its doubtful the

original prophet would use the literal ab because

herein hes writing about a son is born.

We have to be careful when we hinge an entire doctrine

and dogma on the translation of one single verse (or in

this case grossly mistranslated). The rest of the

scriptural record does not support the claim that one ofMessiahs names or titles is everlasting Father. It

would be more likely and even better translated

everlasting OF the Father.

Lets say, for arguments sake that the word is ab.

Why is it capitalized in the Bible? Why does the phrase

say everlasting Father? We know that capitalization

is a convection of the translator and that it was not acapital F in the original text! The fact that the word

Father is capitalized is the only evidence we need of the

bias of the translators. They gave themselves right

away when they capitalized the F in this word!

If we call Messiah everlasting father with a small f

this could be a reference to him being the father and

author of our salvation, (for the word everlasting

here denotes salvation).

The question: is Jesus the Almighty God? The

answer: not by any scripture I can find.


24/24

Is Jesus the Alpha and Omega

Documents

Transcript of Is Jesus the Alpha and Omega