Jesus Christ has a God that he worships

[onewithhim]

Jesus said that we all must love Jehovah our God and worship only Him. He stated clearly that his Father was the only true God (John 17:3); he didn't say that we are the only true God. In many places in the Scriptures he calls the Father "my God."

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3, KJV)

"Jesus saith unto her [Mary], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. (John 20:17, KJV)

"At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34, KJV)

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall no more go out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12, KJV)

I think Jesus wants us to recognize that his Father, Jehovah, is God, and he is God's Son. (John 10:36) What do you make of this?

[The Tanager]

Saying that Jesus is God's presence itself is a stretch, inferring that Jesus is God. Jesus represents his Father, God, so that God doesn't have to be here on the earth, He being too majestic to be here.

Hebrews 1:3 doesn’t say Jesus represents God, but is an exact expression, like a wax seal is the exact expression of the ring. An exact expression of God’s hypostaseos (substance, essence). That’s not about representing for God because God can’t be here.

But regardless of what you do with that, it also calls Jesus the radiance/light/shining of God’s glory, which alludes to the Shekinah glory presence during the Exodus. Hebrews calls Jesus that. Not a reflection or representation of that, but the thing itself. The thing that caused Moses’ face to shine.

[The Tanager]

So? Moses wore sandals so did Jesus . So was Jesus Moses sandals ? The existence of a word (glory) in two unrelated passages (without any indication from the writer that he is linking one with the other) is taking a scripturally unsupported liberty in interpretation.

This is a very specific image from the Hebrew scriptures associated with God’s presence. It is a central image in the imagination of the ancient Jews. Not the glory part, but the radiance/shining that goes with it. If there were multiple instances throughout (like there are with people wearing sandals), then this would be a good point, but there isn’t.

For Paul and his Jewish readers to not connect glory with that major image of God is unreasonable.

Prove it! So far I see nothing but your own rhetoric. No scripture linking the proposal to the conclusion: no validation.

Are you saying you don’t think the Jews thought much about God’s presence as described in the Exodus?

No it wouldn't because the Shekinah light represented God's presence, God wasn't literally the light itself (see 1 Kings 8:27)

If you want to use the word “representation,” then you’ve got to distinguish different kinds of representation. A crown can represent God, but that’s very different from God’s presence coming in clouds and fire or showing Moses His back or a theophany, etc.

Agreed. AND (unless you are suggesting the early disciples were unfamiliar with the teachings if Christ) they also knew Jesus called humans judges elohim /theos. Are you suggesting these same disciples believed all the aforementioned were EQUAL?

What is “all the aforementioned”? There is one thing talked about here. Humans called elohim/theos. That has two options for the earliest Christians: God and false gods.

No the question under discussion is whether Rev 5:11-14 depicts "the Lamb" (Jesus) as being worshipped or not. ..

Then you are begging the question. Does it depict the Lamb as being worshiped? You say no because only God is worshiped and the Lamb isn’t God, so that’s why it can depict the Lamb as being worshiped.

Correct: Why are you pointing this out to me ? did I say that the worship of other gods is impossible?

It definitely seemed that way. You said “whether an act is considered worship or not is determined by why you worship but by to whom one is direction the acts

to Almighty God (YHWH/Jehovah) = worship
to anyone else = obeisance/respect” [bold mine]

That sounds like you are saying only the Almighty God can be worshiped. Anyone else, it’s impossible to worship them; it can only be called obeisance/respect. So, please clarify what you meant.

[MissKate13]

Jesus said that we all must love Jehovah our God and worship only Him. He stated clearly that his Father was the only true God (John 17:3); he didn't say that we are the only true God. In many places in the Scriptures he calls the Father "my God."

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3, KJV)

"Jesus saith unto her [Mary], Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. (John 20:17, KJV)

"At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34, KJV)

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall no more go out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12, KJV)

I think Jesus wants us to recognize that his Father, Jehovah, is God, and he is God's Son. (John 10:36) What do you make of this?

As a man, Jesus worshiped God. The pre-incarnate Jesus (the eternal Word) did not.

I

[onewithhim]

Saying that Jesus is God's presence itself is a stretch, inferring that Jesus is God. Jesus represents his Father, God, so that God doesn't have to be here on the earth, He being too majestic to be here.

Hebrews 1:3 doesn’t say Jesus represents God, but is an exact expression, like a wax seal is the exact expression of the ring. An exact expression of God’s hypostaseos (substance, essence). That’s not about representing for God because God can’t be here.

Yes it is. The wax seal is not the ring. They are not one and the same.

[The Tanager]

Hebrews 1:3 doesn’t say Jesus represents God, but is an exact expression, like a wax seal is the exact expression of the ring. An exact expression of God’s hypostaseos (substance, essence). That’s not about representing for God because God can’t be here.

Yes it is. The wax seal is not the ring. They are not one and the same.

Jesus isn't called the wax, but the image in the wax which is the exact same image on the ring. And the image of what? Not something like "how to live a godly life" or some exemplar like that. Jesus is the image of God's underlying reality or substance or what it means to be God (essence). They are the same that. You and me are both what it means to be human; we share that human essence. Jesus shares God's essence in the same way the wax and ring share the same image. The other things claimed right around it all point to the essence and presence of God Himself as well. Jesus is a radiant glory (like God guiding the Israelites by cloud and fire), a stamp or "copy" of who God essentially is, one who sustains by His word.

It's because of that truth that Jesus sits down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. It came after he accomplished cleansing for sins, but he does it because of Who He is.

[JehovahsWitness]

HEBREWS 1:3

He is the reflection [apaugasma] [other translations "The radiance" "The brightness" ]of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

This is a very specific image from the Hebrew scriptures ...

So you keep saying, but have yet to present a single scripture that supports this view this to be true

Whether we take Pauls words to refer use of [apaugasma] to be reflected radiance/brightness or the brightness itself, both evoke the image of something distinct and different from that which generates that brightness. In any case God is associated with light, Jesus is associated with light, his disciples are associated with light (even Satan is associated with light)... And all light shines. Thus to propose Paul had the specific light of the Shekinah, one will have to do more that state it over and over again (in the vain hope that mere repetition of an unsupported claim will eventually wear down all opposition).

Are you saying you don’t think the Jews thought much about God’s presence as described in the Exodus?

If you mean : did and Jews think of the Shekinah light if they had read Pauls word's at Hebrews 1:3, I don' t know; I am not a mind reader. And to the best of my knowledge, neither are you. It is for this reason we must go on what is written rather than telepathy.

If you want to use the word “representation,” then you’ve got to distinguish different kinds of representation.

I dont see why? By defintion, that which represents is distinct from that which is represented (otherwise there would be no need for representation)

What is “all the aforementioned”?

.. Christians were familiar with the notion of [1] a Supreme Almighty God, [2] false gods, and [3] angels*.

[ * ] ... Hebrew uses elohim for ... angels...

AND (unless you are suggesting the early disciples were unfamiliar with the teachings if Christ) they also knew Jesus called [4] humans judges elohim /theos.

... you are begging the question. Does it depict the Lamb as being worshiped? You say no because only God is worshiped and the Lamb isn’t God, so that’s why it can depict the Lamb as being worshiped

That is completely untrue ; I have never presented that argument to prove the aforementioned point.

[The Tanager]

So you keep saying, but have yet to present a single scripture that supports this view this to be true

You agree that the Shekinah glory refers to fire and light, right? And that Moses’ face was radiant from being in God’s presence, right? Those are the scriptures that establish the image in the Israelite imagination. Maybe you don’t accept the scriptures describe God’s presence in that way?

Whether we take Pauls words to refer use of [apaugasma] to be reflected radiance/brightness or the brightness itself, both evoke the image of something distinct and different from that which generates that brightness.

No, being the brightness itself does not speak of the light being distinct from something else generating that light. The Shekinah glory wasn’t a lamp (or anything else) that shined out bright light; the glory was the light itself, not just a source of light.

In any case God is associated with light, Jesus is associated with light, his disciples are associated with light (even Satan is associated with light)... And all light shines.

But only one image of light was connected with God’s glory in the Jewish imagination. Paul speaks of radiance of God’s glory, connecting those two things.

Thus to propose Paul had the specific light of the Shekinah, one will have to do more that state it over and over again (in the vain hope that mere repetition of an unsupported claim will eventually wear down all opposition).

The reason I keep repeating this is because you say things like “you’ve yet to present a single scripture” and “you aren’t supporting your claim,” so I support it once again. Which is it, I keep repeating it or it’s unsupported?

If you mean : did and Jews think of the Shekinah light if they had read Pauls word's at Hebrews 1:3, I don' t know; I am not a mind reader. And to the best of my knowledge, neither are you. It is for this reason we must go on what is written rather than telepathy.

We don’t have to rely on telepathy. You could easily name images that most Christians associate with God because they are so prevalent in the Bible. I’m simply doing that with a central Jewish story and image.

I dont see why? By defintion, that which represents is distinct from that which is represented (otherwise there would be no need for representation)

Then why can one represent themself in a court of law?

Agreed. AND (unless you are suggesting the early disciples were unfamiliar with the teachings if Christ) they also knew Jesus called humans judges elohim /theos. Are you suggesting these same disciples believed all the aforementioned were EQUAL?

Thank you for clarifying what “all the aforementioned” meant. I’m not suggesting that the disciples believed God, angels, and false gods were equal. When speaking in Greek (or translating into Greek), the earliest Christians used different terms to refer to (1) angels and (2) God/false gods. They don’t use (1) when talking about Jesus. They use (2). So, they are either calling Him God or a false god.

That is completely untrue ; I have never presented that argument to prove the aforementioned point.

It’s only halfway helpful to say “I didn’t say that”. I’m not trying to misrepresent you. Simply clarify what you actually did mean to be all the way helpful. Why are you saying the Lamb isn’t being worshiped in Rev 5:13? If you think you shared it earlier, it wasn’t clear, so please just restate it. At one point it seemed like this was your answer:

When you said “whether an act is considered worship or not is determined by why you worship but by to whom one is direction the acts

to Almighty God (YHWH/Jehovah) = worship
to anyone else = obeisance/respect” [bold emphasis mine]

it sounds to me like you are saying only the Almighty God can be worshiped. Anyone else it is impossible to worship them; that is rightly called obeisance/respect. And since you think the Lamb isn’t God (not from this scripture but other scripture), it can’t be saying the Lamb is worshiped. If you don’t mean that, then clarify it instead of just saying “you are misunderstanding me”.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... Moses’ face was radiant from being in God’s presence, right?

Correct. So Moses shone and Jesus shines correct?

The Shekinah glory wasn’t a lamp (or anything else) that shined out bright light; the glory was the light itself, not just a source of light.

Firstly you are not talking about the "glory" you are talking about the radiance / shine, and you are correct, the Shekinah glory was "not just a source of light" , the glory of God was the light itself . However the radiance Paul refered to was was evidently the shine / reflection of glory. The distinction you yourself are pointing out, namely the difference between a "shined out bright light" (emmitted light *) and the self generated (unsourced) glory of the Supreme one, is indeed significant.

* TO EMIT | " to send out light, sound, or a smell, or a gas or other substance"

...Paul speaks of radiance of God’s glory, connecting those two things.

If by "two things" you mean Paul connected the radiance of Christ with the glory of GOD he did indeed. So now all we now have to do is understand what he does (and does not) mean (see above)

... why can one represent themself in a court of law?

Lol.. "representing yourself" does not mean you split like an amoeba into two identical "yous" but that you take on the role of a lawyer (who would normally be representing or speaking on your behalf). There are still two seperate and distinct legal entities , the defendent and representative of the defendent.

.. Christians were familiar with the notion of [1] a Supreme Almighty God, [2] false gods, and [3] angels*.

[ * ] ... Hebrew uses elohim for ... angels...

AND (unless you are suggesting the early disciples were unfamiliar with the teachings if Christ) they also knew Jesus called [4] humans judges elohim /theos.

Thank you for clarifying what “all the aforementioned” meant.

You are welcome. Now that is clarified, perhaps you can clarify for me if you claim any of the statements below to be untrue?

[1] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of a Supreme Almighty elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek writers theos) ? YES or NO

[2] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of false elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek writers theos) ? YES or NO

[3] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of a angelic elohim (as Hebrew uses elohim for angels ) ? YES or NO

[4] Is it true that Jesus called human Judges elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek as theos) ? YES or NO

Why are you saying the Lamb isn’t being worshiped in Rev 5:13?

Because Rev 5:13 doesn't SAY the lamb is being worshipped .

When you said “...whether an act is considered "worship" or not is determinded by why you worship but by to whom one is directing the acts" ... it sounds to me like you are saying only the Almighty God can be worshiped.

No. The point I was making was that according to scripture, the same act (to bow down , to prostate yourself before) can be either a legitimate sign of respect or a act of worship depending on who (or what) the object of that devotion is.

[The Tanager]

Correct. So Moses shone and Jesus shines correct?

No. Moses is described as shining from being in God’s presence (which is radiant light). Jesus is described as the radiant light, not shining from being in God’s presence. Jesus isn’t said to reflect the radiance. It says hos on apaugasma tes doxes, “who being [the] radiance of glory”.

Lol.. "representing yourself" does not mean you split like an amoeba into two identical "yous" but that you take on the role of a lawyer (who would normally be representing or speaking on your behalf). There are still two seperate and distinct legal entities , the defendent and representative of the defendent.

I didn’t say you split like an amoeba. You said “by definition, that which represents is distinct from that which is represented”. Sure, it’s two different roles, but it is the same referent. You are also banking a lot on the English word “represent” and your understanding of that term, when it isn’t a straight 1 to 1 translation. The Greek word is charakter, which is an engraving, figuratively an exact impression which also reflects inner character. That’s not what our English word “represent” means.

[1] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of a Supreme Almighty elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek writers theos) ? YES or NO

[2] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of false elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek writers theos) ? YES or NO

[3] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of a angelic elohim (as Hebrew uses elohim for angels ) ? YES or NO

[4] Is it true that Jesus called human Judges elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek as theos) ? YES or NO

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes
(4) Yes

But there are only 3 senses of the word (1-3). (4) is not a different sense. It’s comparing those humans to one of the 3 senses of the word. So, which sense (1, 2, or 3) was Jesus applying that elohim to?

No. The point I was making was that according to scripture, the same act (to bow down , to prostate yourself before) can be either a legitimate sign of respect or a act of worship depending on who (or what) the object of that devotion is.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Because Rev 5:13 doesn't SAY the lamb is being worshipped.

Why not? What does it say? What is being done to the Lamb? Obeisance?

[JehovahsWitness]

... So Moses shone and Jesus shines correct?

No. Moses is described as shining ....Jesus is described as the radiant light, not shining ...

So you claim Moses shone but Jesus is a radiant light that does not shine? Is that what you are saying?

The Greek word is charakter, which is an engraving, figuratively an exact impression which also reflects inner character.

Correct. So?

[1] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of a Supreme Almighty elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek writers theos) ? YES or NO

[2] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of false elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek writers theos) ? YES or NO

[3] Is it true that the early JEWISH Christians were familiar the idea of a angelic elohim (as Hebrew uses elohim for angels ) ? YES or NO

[4] Is it true that Jesus called human Judges elohim (rendered in scripture by the inspired Christian Greek as theos) ? YES or NO

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) Yes
(4) Yes

So how can you claim that those same Jewish Christians had no notion of greater and lesser elohim (rendered by inspired writers as theos) ?

Because Rev 5:13 doesn't SAY the lamb is being worshipped.

Why not? What does it say? What is being done to the Lamb? Obeisance?

REVELATION 5:13

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever