Persuaded

Each letter is in a format, beginning with the addressee (the meaning whose name is important), then a title of Jesus taken from chapter 1, a commendation (unless none is warranted), a correction (unless none is warranted), the message to the overcomer, and the closing note about "he that hath an ear". It is instructive to see which churches lack one element of the "format", and also to see that the message to the overcomer occurs as a postscript, after the "he that hath an ear" phrase, in only the first two letters, including here with Ephesus. To start, it's helpful to get some background on Ephesus. First off, the name means "desirable", so right away love is in view here. Paul's first encounter with them is Acts 18:19-21, noted for the fact that they asked him to stay longer, versus casting him in prison or stoning him, as in other cities. He returns and spends three years there, and from there the word grew throughout asia. Paul's letter to the Ephesians is out of his love for them, and is not noted for any particular doctrinal correction. The letter contains the clearest account of betrothal and spousal love in Ephesians 5. Later, in Acts 20 Paul meets the elders of the church at Ephesus and warns them: [Act 20:29-31 NKJV] "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. This is a prediction and warning against teachers of false doctrine, among the flock. ​Next up is the first letter to Timothy, then the pastor of the church of Ephesus. The letter is full of references to teaching and doctrine, from the beginning we have: [1Ti 1:3 NKJV] As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, So love and defense of sound doctrine are major themes in the writings we have, that apply to Ephesus. So with that, here's Jesus Christ's personal letter to Ephesus: [Rev 2:1 NKJV] "To the angel of the church of Ephesus write, 'These things says He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: [Rev 2:2 NKJV] "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; [Rev 2:3 NKJV] "and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name's sake and have not become weary. [Rev 2:4 NKJV] "Nevertheless I have [this] against you, that you have left your first love. [Rev 2:5 NKJV] "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place--unless you repent. [Rev 2:6 NKJV] "But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. [Rev 2:7 NKJV] "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." ' Again, the meaning of the word "Ephesus" is "desirable". I'll suggest it is in the sense of spousal or first love, as is developed throughout the letter. Christ's title is "He who holds the seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands". He is explicitly among, with, even caressing the stars and candlesticks. The commendation: verses 2,3, and 6 list their good deeds. They seemed to have heeded Paul's warning in Acts 20 about the wolves (false teachers) coming among them, and Paul's teaching to Timothy to be strong in the doctrine, because here they "cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars". They are doctrinally strong, just as they have been warned and taught to be. For the nicolaitans, I prefer the approach that this is just an untranslated word rather than a name or title. It's a compound word of nikos (victory, conquer) and laos ("laity", the people), and describes the practice of a clergy between God and the people. By the time of Pergamos (=perverse/mixed marriage, where the church "marries" the worldly system and becomes the religion of the court), it becomes the doctrine of the nicolaitans, and is somewhat explained in 2:14 as the righteous are tempted away by easy living to their damnation. What the devil couldn't accomplish through persecution of the church in Smyrna (=crushed, like the myrrh spice), he more than achieves by making the formerly persecuted church fat and comfortable in Pergamos. The correction: "Nevertheless". What a terrible word! "You have left your first love". "First love" isn't like first in order, but "best" or "chief". It's the spousal love, that sees only the object of love to the exclusion of distractions. It's not loving something first in a list of ten, it's first in a list of one. That's "first love". Put these two together, and you have a church (or a person, one with ears) that is rigorous in doctrine, but lacks a love relationship with Jesus. It's an easy trap to fall in to, and we probably have seen examples of it all our lives, and even lived in this mode at times of our own lives. The correction continues with "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place--unless you repent." "First works" is "best works", the doctrine and the love. The removal of the lampstand is not removal of the Holy Spirit (Jesus promised that the Comforter would never leave the church), but the witness or display of the Holy Spirit. If you are doctrinally sound but live like a ruthless curmudgeon, can anybody see the Spirit in your life? The lampstand "removed from its place" also refers back to 2:1, where the proper place of the lampstands is in close fellowship with Him, as He walks in their midst. Next is the common phrase for each of the seven letters, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." We all have ears, the letter is for us all. We are also to hear what is said to the other 6 churches, as each has application in a portion of our lives and relationship to Jesus. If you continue to study the other 6 letters, you'll notice that this closing phrase occurs after the promise to the overcomer in the final five letters, rather than before, as here and with Smyrna. The Tree of Life is the same, from the garden, the Proverbs, to here, to Revelation 22. I suggest that it represents pure fellowship with Jesus, unfettered by sin or the curse. Certainly that's a study in its own right, though! [Pro 13:12 NKJV] Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But [when] the desire comes, [it is] a tree of life. What is "hope"? -I suggest it is the coming of the redeemer, the promise of the second coming. Who is "the desire of nations"?

Ah, I thought by "disciples" you were narrowing the audience, to a subset of Paul's addressees: 2 Corinthians 1:1 (NKJV) 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia: I'd say the theological points of any of Paul's letters apply to the the "church of God" and "all the saints".

Glad to see you remembered what I had said. When we read the context it becomes obvious that he is talking specifically to his disciples. Here is some of it. `...or did I commit a sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to serve you; & when I was present with you & was in need, I was not a burden to anyone. for when the brethren came from Macedonia, they fully supplied my need, & in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you & will continue to do so.` (2 Cor.11: 7 - 9) Huh. I read that ^ and see him addressing the church at Corinth, even contrasting his relationship with them to other (otherwise equivalent) churches. I can usually see a rational argument that allows an alternate view, but I'm just missing yours, here. I see Paul in ch10 forcefully reiterating his credentials, and summing up his authority by claiming in 11:2 in effect to be "the friend of the bridegroom" of John 3:29- John 3:29 (KJV) He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. And he continues to refute their presumption, that his teaching them in humility, freely, wasn't a sign of the weekness of his position. But I just don't see a shift in audience, nor a reason to restrict his (theological) message to a local audience. To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion about the location of heaven, or the millennial location of the the church. I'm satisfied that it will be with Christ, and the rest becomes somewhat semantic. My interest in joining this thread was to comment on some particular points made, not necessarily to jump down the rabbit hole that the OT entails!

Is the Father's throne located outside His kingdom? Matthew 5:34 (NKJV) 34 "But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; Revelation 4:2 (NKJV) 2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. I don't think a technical argument that uses a narrow definition of heaven holds up. "Heaven" is used too broadly to be pedantic over it. "Kingdom of heaven" is similarly broad, having many connotations in different contexts.

You've used this argument before, that the verse is somehow for Paul's disciples. In reading (again) the whole context, I don't see where this idea comes from. Can you describe aspect of the passage limits the application to a subset of the letter's intended audience? And, your argument seems to come from an odd understanding of "present". The word present (paristemi) has more meaning than "to physically hand over". From context, it seems to be used as "to show by argument, prove". to place beside or near to set at hand to present to proffer to provide to place a person or thing at one's disposal to present a person for another to see and question to present or show to bring to, bring near metaph. i.e to bring into one's fellowship or intimacy to present (show) by argument, to prove to stand beside, stand by or near, to be at hand, be present to stand by to stand beside one, a bystander to appear to be at hand, stand ready to stand by to help, to succour to be present to have come of time

In checking your sums I'm getting a different answer here, Marilyn. Where do you find epi meaning "over" rather than "on"? Every mainstream translation, lexicon, and concordance I can find says it is pretty clearly "on or upon". In other scripture, it is overwhelmingly translated "on, upon, in, unto, to", but nowhere that I've found is it "over".

I think the church generally does enough "preaching", but generally neglects discipling and teaching. Note the commission at the end of Matthew is quite different than Mark's: Matthew 28:18 (NKJV) 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Matthew 28:19 (NKJV) 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:20 (NKJV) 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Mark speaks of preaching and conversion, Matthew of teaching the disciples.

Is there a rule against wine in heaven, in the Father's kingdom?

I ran across an article on this from some homeschooler friends recently that seems interesting. It was a refutation of courtship as a method of choosing a spouse. Basically, it described how folks a hundred years ago often did this, with a simple rule that young folks couldn't date the same person until they had dated two other people in the meanwhile. This enforced a certain casualness to the dates, while widening the field of prospects. When youth pledge to be faithful or go steady, they invest their hearts into the other person, get fixated on that person, and start seeing that one person as their one, best chance to find love. Ending such relationships is by "breaking up" which is hard to do (cue the song), and by inertia many just stay in the first relationship that they commit to. By casually seeing lots of prospects, a youth has a chance to see that person in comparison to many others, and get to know them as a friend first, before establishing a commitment or romantic layer to the relationship.

I'm going to push back against a few things you've said here. 1) I don't see evidence of a feast in the verses you quoted. It appears to come in ch 19. 2) "called out assembly" is the etymological meaning of ekklesia, but not its definition in use. In OT (LXX) and ancient greek usage, it referred to a meeting, a gathering, not to the people that met or gathered. Each new meeting was a new ekklesia. The things accomplished at an ekklesia were reported as done by the group that met, not by the ekklesia. Jesus begins to change that with His statement that He would build His ekklesia (not, "meeting") on this Rock, and the usage continues to shift further under Paul as he writes "all the churches salute you", and even "And He put all [things] under His feet, and gave Him [to be] head over all [things] to the ekklesia, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Most that quote the "called out assembly" definition do so to promote the idea that the ekklesia began as Israel and is now replaced or absorbed by the church. 3)There's other judgments that occur before ch8, say in ch6. 4) The cyclical approach is popular, but flawed. The judgments do relate, but aren't the same. In the same way that the plagues of Egypt followed an ABCCBA pattern, these seals, trumps, bowls also follow a pattern. But just as the first and tenth, second and eighth, etc. plagues were similar, they weren't the same events "redescribed". Same here. 5) Yes, the woman of ch 12 is Israel, but in the sense that she starts with Eve, giving birth, generation by generation, to the seed of the woman from Gen 3.

Oops, just saw your link, W. That's close to what I know, except his final conclusion is a little wonky. Israel is clearly the pregnant woman of Rev 12. If she is then the bride in Rev 19, then she's in trouble! [Rev 12:1,2 KJV] And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. Which is interpreted by Joseph's dream, describing his father and mother and 11 brothers: [Gen 37:9 KJV] And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

I wrote a summary of the jewish wedding It seems clear from that pattern that the raptured church is in the huppah for the "week". From reading further in that thread, you can also see that some here have rather different views!

we can't live our life worrying about offending total strangers, and that's not what God intended when He said not to be a stumbling block for your brother. as for your daughter, why not raise her to respond to questions with the answer that your family believes that matters of alcohol are between the individual and God? What about the alcoholic church going Christian? not sure what you mean with your question, but i'll try to respond in a way that covers all the basis in my most humble opinion. first of all, i was answering to the situation that was brought up... a child who attends school who might get into a discussion with other christian kids about the biblical legality of drinking alcohol. i wasn't under the impression that the scenario presented was about alcoholism or even occasional binge drinking. as i understood the scenario, persuaded was referring to situations where their child, coming from a background where the parents might have an occasional beer or glass of wine, might possibly offend a child whose parents taught them that alcohol was evil, period, with no exceptions. in that situation, the child really needs to understand that you can't please everybody, and that they should stand firm on biblical truth... that truth being that alcohol in moderation is between God and an individual. secondly, what about the church going christian who happens to be an alcoholic... is that an adequate rephrasing of your question? if it is, then my response is also a question. what about it? should the church close its doors to an alcoholic? or to an alcoholic who has accepted Christ but still struggles on a daily basis with drinking? there are a lot of christians out there that still have very real struggles with substance abuse. see, this is why i have had such a hard time finding a church to settle into here in texas. everybody wants their pews filled with cookie cutter christians, and those with issues are made to feel unwelcome. i'm so grateful that when we lived in vegas, i belonged to a church that opened it's doors, arms and hearts wide to those with addictions. it was that loving, welcoming attitude that helped my husband go from being a chronic meth abuser to someone who has now been clean for more than three years, and has even been able to put down cigarettes... even though moving back to texas and leaving that church was critical for his getting clean, he couldn't have done it if he hadn't spent years being accepted by the very people he knew without a doubt were praying for him. and my husband isn't the only person i saw change as a result of that church's attitude... if a label can be given to a church, grapevine proudly wore the banner of "recovery church". in the five years i was a member, i knew a whole lot of people who were able to overcome drugs, gambling, drinking, prostitution, you name it. they were welcomed inside the doors even on the occasions when they came in obviously high or drunk, and nobody criticized them for it. prayed with them over it, but never criticized. isn't that the attitude that the church (as a whole) is supposed to have? Funny, for lack of punctuation I completed mis understood Fez's comment until now. He means: "What about the alcoholic, church-going Christian?" ...not that there's an alcoholic church that is "going Christian". Whew, glad I got that straight! To the weightier matters... I do think that the point Paul is making in Romans 14 is that yes we should consider the effect of offending total strangers. While Paul vehemently educated Christians to reject religiosity and legalism, he still had Timothy circumcised to avoid offending a Jewish audience. He emphatically declares that meat is fine to eat, but that if it offends it is not charitable to eat it. It isn't just between me and God, if it offends others, especially those that are weaker in faith. I might also argue that there are no "total strangers". In my circumstance, living in a smallish town, that becomes more real. Whatever else we may be called to do for Him, we are all, all of us, called to be a witness. ----- As a young guy with my dad, we came out of a life of drugs and eastern religion and general hippy lifestyle. The church that took us in had a similar ethos- welcome everyone through the doors, even the barefoot hippies reeking of dope, and let God's message change them from the inside out. For new believers, they worked hard to provide a place away from our old environment in which to get grounded in the Word and established in church fellowship. I have a lot of sympathy for the plight of those that are lost in this way!

Typology is the study of "types" or "models" in scripture. Ayin Jade gives a definition at the beginning of the "typology" thread she started (which I linked to, above). I look at types a little more broadly than she does, but her definition is a good start. Types seem to me to be most vivid when the characters in the story, or the details used in the story, seem out of place or contrived in the story itself but only become clear when Jesus, or some NT truth, is placed in the middle of the story. So in Ruth, we have a beautiful piece of literature, but its fullest expression is as a type of Christ redeeming the world to obtain His bride, and almost every detail of the story of Ruth seems engineered to point to the bigger picture.

I'm probably guilty of being a little flippant here, and that's probably not an appropriate way to discuss communion. I know that the reason churches generally switch to grape juice is to avoid stumbling a pew-sitter. [Rom 14:2,2 KJV] For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. It's interesting to note in this discussion of diet, the one who is weak in the faith is the one with the more restrictive outlook. [Rom 14:15-17 KJV] But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. If a brother is grieved by my diet, I assume that can also apply to my choice about alcohol. I've been thinking about this lately, as I raise a child. I don't want her to have a puritanical "all alcohol is evil" outlook, and thus a forbidden fruit attraction later, but I also don't want her to destroy our family's witness as she discusses these issues with school mates that come from sometimes very non-alcoholic backgrounds.

Is there any scriptural justification for the substitution of grape juice for wine at communion?

quote: "I am a mid-tribber myself." Funny, I had a teacher once that liked to say that people that claimed to be mid-tribbers were actually pre-tribbers who just didn't realize it yet. Yes, the "Great Tribulation" starts where Jesus says it does, when the abomination that makes desolate is set up, in the middle of Dan's week. Maybe it's the pre-tribbers that have the terms wrong; we're pre-weekers, which is pre-pre-tribbers! But I'll go further out on my limb and say that there's reason to believe that the harpazo happens long before the 70th week, before the man of sin is even revealed, let alone come to power.

Kwik, you owe yourself a kwik read of the book of Ruth! Yes Naomi (actually her husband, Elimelech, who was still alive when they left) "sold" the land when they left: [Rth 4:3-10 NKJV] Then he said to the close relative, "Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, sold the piece of land which [belonged] to our brother Elimelech. "And I thought to inform you, saying, 'Buy [it] back in the presence of the inhabitants and the elders of my people. If you will redeem [it], redeem [it]; but if you will not redeem [it, then] tell me, that I may know; for [there is] no one but you to redeem [it], and I [am] next after you.' " And he said, "I will redeem [it]." Then Boaz said, "On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also buy [it] from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance." And the close relative said, "I cannot redeem [it] for myself, lest I ruin my own inheritance. You redeem my right of redemption for yourself, for I cannot redeem [it]." Now this [was the custom] in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave [it] to the other, and this [was] a confirmation in Israel. Therefore the close relative said to Boaz, "Buy [it] for yourself." So he took off his sandal. And Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You [are] witnesses this day that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that [was] Chilion's and Mahlon's, from the hand of Naomi. "Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. You [are] witnesses this day." In addition to being a really great piece of literature, with some of the most angst-filled dialogue possible (in the older translations, the newer ones really mess it up!), there is a lot going on in this tiny little book. Get some good commentaries that explain the leverite marriage, the authority of the hem of the garment, the whole kinsman redeemer/avenger of blood/goel concept, the meanings of the names, the significance of Perez, and if it interests you the that is so richly embedded throughout the story.

The book doesn't specifically say. [Rth 1:19 KJV] So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, [is] this Naomi? From this, it seems clear that Naomi was well known in the town. It seems likely that somebody offered them a place to stay, or perhaps they still had the tents from their journey from Moab. Any particular reason that it matters, either to the flow of the story or the typology of Boaz and Ruth and Naomi?

Boaz redeemed the land. He bought the land to gain a wife, Ruth. No, Naomi and Ruth didn't live on their land, until their kinsman redeemer performed his duty. The land in those days was never technically sold, more like what we would think of as leased. The deed holder could transfer use of the family land to someone else, but by law ownership of the land couldn't be transferred permanently out of the family. The practice was to write the description of the property on a document (a deed), roll it up, then write the terms of the lease (the cost to redeem it, who could redeem it, etc) on the outside, with a seal. See Jer 32:6-15, where the deed is described as "sealed and open", and Rev 4, where the scroll is written on both sides and sealed. These all describe and amplify the roll of the kinsman redeemer, as set out in Ruth and given its full expression in Revelation, as another Kinsman Redeemer sets out to take possession of the land He paid for, in order to gain for Himself a bride.

Places where the Son is called YHWH or elohiym (we just went through this here with a JW-ish fellow a month ago, but I can't find the thread, so must rebuild from scratch...). Hebrews 1 quotes several OT passages and says they apply to the Son: Hebrews 1:8 (NKJV) 8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. Hebrews 1:9 (NKJV) 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions." Which is quoting Psalm 45: Psalms 45:6 (NKJV) 6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. Psalms 45:7 (NKJV) 7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. Another from Hebrews: Hebrews 1:10 (NKJV) 10 And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:11 (NKJV) 11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Hebrews 1:12 (NKJV) 12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail." Which is quoting Psalm 102: Psalms 102:25 (NKJV) 25 Of old You [the LORD, from earlier in the Psalm, and confirmed by Hebrews ] laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Psalms 102:26 (NKJV) 26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. And here's Philippians 2 again: Philippians 2:9 (NKJV) 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, Philippians 2:10 (NKJV) 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, Philippians 2:11 (NKJV) 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ...saying every knee shall bow to JESUS. Which is referring to Isaiah 45: Isaiah 45:21 (NKJV) 21 Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. Isaiah 45:22 (NKJV) 22 "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:23 (NKJV) 23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath. Isaiah 45:24 (NKJV) 24 He shall say, 'Surely in the LORD I have righteousness and strength. To Him men shall come, And all shall be ashamed Who are incensed against Him. Isaiah 45:25 (NKJV) 25 In the LORD all the descendants of Israel Shall be justified, and shall glory.' " And the knee shall bow phrase is repeated in Romans: Romans 14:11 (NKJV) 11 For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." To whom does the knee bow in these two passages? -the LORD!

With the exception of the RSV, I think all you've done is find a bunch of oddballs to agree with your position. Not good company upon which to build a case for changing the understanding of the scripture. And for fun, I just love that the hebrew has the untranslated aleph-tav (אֵ֣ת) accusative right after "look upon me". These first and last letters, corresponding to the alpha and omega of the greek, make a person want to read this as "and they shall look upon me, the alpha and omega, whom they have pierced..." That's what it says, but not quite what it means. But a fun "coincidence" none the less!

Numbers 19:1-10 (NKJV) 1 Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 2 “This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD has commanded, saying: ‘Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which a yoke has never come. 3 ‘You shall give it to Eleazar the priest, that he may take it outside the camp, and it shall be slaughtered before him; 4 ‘and Eleazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and sprinkle some of its blood seven times directly in front of the tabernacle of meeting. 5 ‘Then the heifer shall be burned in his sight: its hide, its flesh, its blood, and its offal shall be burned. 6 ‘And the priest shall take cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet, and cast them into the midst of the fire burning the heifer. 7 ‘Then the priest shall wash his clothes, he shall bathe in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp; the priest shall be unclean until evening. 8 ‘And the one who burns it shall wash his clothes in water, bathe in water, and shall be unclean until evening. 9 ‘Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin. 10 ‘And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statute forever to the children of Israel and to the stranger who dwells among them. The sacrifice is completed after the animal is slain. The high priest remains unclean for a time, afterward. The OT tabernacle was a model of the heavenly, so when The, our high priest made His sacrifice, He had to return from outside the camp where Be was slain and perform the priestly duties over the real, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus calls the Father "my God". The Father (or the LORD) calls the Son "LORD" as well. Repeating one, does not negate the other.

interesting..... how would you explain the context when Jesus was resurrected and after He was resurrected made the following statement "'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" This is resurrection morning, to Mary: John 20:17 (NKJV) 17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.' " I'd suggest the first part of the quote is key here: "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father..." We know He was touched and handled after the resurrection, so what's going on here? Why shouldn't Mary cling to Him just then? The answer that seems most reasonable comes out of Hebrews 9: Hebrews 9:13 (NKJV) 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, Hebrews 9:14 (NKJV) 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit ***offered Himself without spot to God***, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? In His dual role as both our high priest, and the sacrifice itself, He needed to present Himself to the Father, spotless, as an acceptable sacrifice, in accordance with Levitcal law. It is not disputed that Jesus, on earth, gave deference to the Father. That was the role He took on as He emptied (kenao, Phi 2) Himself.

Again, the whole verse/quote from Thomas is: John 20:28 (NKJV) 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" He said to Him, both those things. This is Thomas speaking, not Jesus teaching within a framed context. No (credible) Bible translator has re-written the My Lord and my God expression the way you have. Even placing it alongside other unrelated passages doesn't change the clear meaning of what is said. It isn't "diving into the text" if all you do is re-write the parts that don't agree with your view. "If you torture the data long enough, it'll confess to whatever you want". Try just reading what is written, unless your position is that Bible is all a mistranslated conspiracy that consistently distorts the truth.