Donna,

I appreciate, very much, that you have chosen to respond to this.

Before I say anything, I need to first point out that the vast majority of the time since I've been saved, I believed it just as you wrote.

Also, almost everyone else that I know, believe it just as you wrote.

It does seem to be the simplest explanation, which is usually the safest way to approach things.

The main point that I was attempting to bring out, in a few of the letters that I had sent in to FiveDoves last week, was the manifestation of the Son.

The LORD is simultaneously, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Not simply three different modes - but the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, the Holy Ghost glorifies the Son, and the Father & Son sent the Holy Ghost. 

I had attempted to make the case that the Son is the manifestation of the LORD to his creation, visibly and audibly, to both the celestial and terrestrial aspects of all he created.

Also, that the Father is the heart of the LORD, that all things work according to his plan and wisdom.

And that the Spirit is the manifestation of the ever present working of the LORD, throughout his creation, and even within the hearts of born again Christians.

So, the Son, as the express image of the Father, manifests all that creation needs to see of the LORD:

Hebrews 1:3a Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, 

So that Jesus could therefore say:

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

  8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

  9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

And as the Word of God, the Son speaks all that the creation needs to hear from the LORD.

However, there are two other things that I would like to mention.

One is, that John was given, and wrote down, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not the Revelation of the Father.

Although shown in other books of the Bible, the last book, in particular, powerfully reveals who Jesus is, the God-man.

He is not just man, but he is fully God, and is not only God, but he is fully man.

So, that book reveals the two natures of Christ, the Almighty and the Lamb, as John experienced this revelation in the Spirit.

John first is to write down what he heard the voice say:

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

It is the Almighty speaking, but then as he turns to see the voice, he sees one like the Son of man.

Therefore, two natures in one Jesus Christ - simultaneously Son of God and Son of man.

Then in chapter 4, John is brought up to heaven and sees a throne, not two thrones, or three thrones - only one throne.

And John said that one sat upon the throne - clearly it is the LORD seated upon the throne.

And as mentioned above, the LORD is simultaneously Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Yet totally different than catholic or hindu portrayals of their deities, the LORD does not have three heads, six legs, four arms, and two wings - that would be tri-theism.

The Father and the Son on the same one throne? Yes.

Revelation 3:21b  even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Revelation 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

In 3:21 it is the Son and the Father in the same throne.

In 22:1 and 22:3, the one throne is called "the throne of God and of the Lamb".

Growing up catholic, I was used to seeing all kinds of pictures of an old man God in one throne, with a young man God in his own throne to the right of the other, with a bird God flying overhead.

That was explained to me as Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father, and that it is the "only" way to explain, "at the right hand of the Father".

However:

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Psalms 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

  8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Jeremiah 23:23 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?

  24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

So, where, technically, would be the physical right-hand side of an omnipresent Spirit that fills heaven and earth?

No, the Son can be in the same throne with the Father, and still fulfill seated at the right hand of the Father.

First, at the right hand, speaks of position of preeminence and power, similar to how we use the phrase, someone's right hand man.

Secondly, we are in the image of God, and not the other way around, and the LORD sometimes uses anthropomorphic expressions to help us understand:

Psalms 60:8 Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe: Philistia, triumph thou because of me.

Does the LORD take off his physical shoe and cast it over Edom, or is this anthropomorphic?

And even if directional, physical relationship must be adhered to, it is still more than understandable within the context of one throne:

Revelation 3:21b  even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

And since it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and not the Revelation of the Father, it is understandable that John saw the Son on the throne.

Which would be the case if the Son is what is seen of the LORD, and if the Father is invisible.

Secondly, chapters 4 and 5 quite clearly reveal the two natures of Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of man, i.e. Deity, as well as humanity as the Lamb.

Chapter 5 very well shows the humanity of Jesus, so, the question is, whether chapter 4 is only showing the Deity of the Father, rather than the Deity of the Son.

There has never been any need to show the Deity of the Father, that has always been a given, but the Deity of the Son has sadly been debated over the centuries.

Yes, it is more simple to consider that it is the Father, alone on the throne, who gives the book to the Son, who is not on the throne.

In chapter 4, the one sitting on the throne is called the Almighty in 4:8, but so is the Son in chapter 1.

It says that the one sitting one the throne lives for ever and ever in 4:9, but so does the Son.

It says that they cast their crowns before him that sat on the throne in 4:10, but we've all heard it preached, or sung, countless times, that the crowns are cast at Jesus' feet.

However, the showing of the two natures of Jesus, was given also by similar vision, to Daniel:

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

  10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

   13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

  22a Until the Ancient of days came,

This was always explained to me to simply be the Son coming to the Father.

However, that view presents a few other problems:

1. That has the Father coming to the earth just before the second advent of Jesus.

2. That has the Father judging, but Jesus said:

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

But to say that Ancient of days only means the Father, forgets the following:

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

To say that the garment as white as snow and the hairs of his head like the pure wool, only shows the Father, also forgets the following:

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

  3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

Revelation 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

No, it appears that, more likely, the vision given to Daniel, prophetically presents the two natures of the coming Messiah.

In similar fashion, that which John saw in the Spirit, may also be revealing the two natures of Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of man.

At the Council of Nicea, there were three doctrines, when describing the Father and the Son.

Arius and his followers believed that the Father and the Son are different essences.

The semi-Arians believed that the Father and the Son are of similar essence.

Athanasius used the scriptures to show that the Father and the Son are the same essence.

For the Arians and semi-Arians, two different men, sitting next to one another, was to them, intuitively obvious, and easy to imagine, since they believed in different or similar essences (i.e. 2 different Gods).

Whereas what Athanasius showed was a real Father and a real Son, but the same essence (i.e. 1 and the same God)  - which the natural mind cannot relate to, nor understand, without the aid of the Spirit.

However, Donna, I must point out, that I would be extremely reckless to insist that what I believe this to be, must be dogmatic.

I absolutely could be wrong about how I see this, and what I had been taught, like what you wrote, could still be the best explanation for what John saw.

I cannot say to you that you were wrong, because that would not be how I should approach this, even if what I said is correct, since this was an apocalyptic vision that John had in the Spirit.

Again, thank you, my Sister, so much, for taking the time to read the things that I have written, and taking the time to respond.

.