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?

[JehovahsWitness]

.. (1) if you think the word inherently includes the idea of ‘reflection

Why at you asking me about inherency? Did I mention the word or even the notion at all? If you wish to introduced this idea into the conversation , do so and explain upon what basis it is relevant (either to something I said or to an argument you are presenting) I am not obliged to address every random idea you post.

We were talking about elohim being translated into Greek as theos ...

That may be what YOU are talking about, *I* am talking about what notions the early Jewish Christians had of elohim (notions which may well have been in the mind of Thomas at the time of the ressurection)

Elohim does not mean “gods” in Hebrew, it is a wider term (“spiritual beings” or something like that) ... That’s why the Jews were okay with calling angels and other humans “elohim” and weren’t concerned about breaking the first commandment in doing so.

I’m not saying those words are, inherently, synonyms of worship. It’s about context as well.

When you say "context" do you mean the verses outside of verse 13.

[Capbook]

I would prefer Barnes

I prefer Jesus.

You prefer Jesus than Jehovah?

[Capbook]

It seems to much to ask a trinitarian to believe Jesus, the one they claim to be following. Jesus is 100% in subjection to his God and Father. The Father commands him. John 15:10--Jesus says --If you observe( obey) my commandments you will remain in my love, just as i have observed( obeyed) the commandments of the Father and remain in his love.---All can clearly see if Jesus didn't obey his Fathers commandments he wouldn't remain in his Fathers love.--BELIEVE JESUS trinitarians, you are being mislead.
The Father is greater than i--a quote from Jesus.

Calvin's understanding of that phrase, that it must have referred to his human nature and also he also believe of Jesus eternal Divinity.

John 14:28
For the Father is greater than I. This passage has been tortured in various ways. The Aryans, in order to prove that Christ is some sort of inferior God, argued that he is less than the Father. The orthodox Fathers, to remove all ground for such a calumny, said that this must have referred to his human nature; but as the Aryans abused this testimony, so the reply given by the Fathers to their objection was neither correct nor appropriate; for Christ does not now speak either of his human nature, or of his eternal Divinity, but, accommodating himself to our weakness, places himself between God and us; and, indeed, as it has not been granted to us to reach the height of God, Christ descended to us, that he might raise us to it. You ought to have rejoiced, he says, because I return to the Father; for this is the ultimate object at which you ought to aim. By these words he does not show in what respect he differs in himself from the Father, but why he descended to us; and that was that he might unite us to God; for until we have reached that point, we are, as it were, in the middle of the course.
(from Calvin's Commentaries)

Calvin is wrong. Jesus isn't God, He wasn't called God at John 1:1 in the Greek lexicons he is called god small g.

Many differs in interpretation of John 1:1.
But I believe it would be hard to mis-interpret this verse.
Rom 9:5
5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV

Your translations are altered against Gods will. Catholicism erred at Rom 9:5 to fit false council teachings, they made many errors. It has been proven that the 3 witness bearers are the spirit, water and blood. Yet Catholicism translated in Father, son and holy spirit--out of their own Vatican archives came the proof. You are being mislead by Catholicism translating. Jesus was NEVER with that religion.

I've checked Romans 9:5 in Interlinear Bible and find almost all words have corresponding Greek and number, while 1 John 5:7. I find no corresponding Greek words to the addition.
Please find various translations below and I don't believe they made errors.

Roman 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV
Rom 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
NIV
Rom 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
NKJV
Rom 9:5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
ASV
Rom 9:5 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
(Holy Bible, New Living Translation)
Rom 9:5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.
(Young's Literal Translation)
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom came Christ in the flesh, who is over all, God, to whom be blessing for ever. So be it.
(Basic in Bible English)

Errors?

Psalm 45:7--Jesus has a God before earth)--John 20:17, Jesus has a God while on earth)--Rev 3:12-Jesus has a God back in heaven)---So you have to teach--God has a God= total error. All the translations you used relied on Catholicism translating. Thus you put your eternal life into Catholicism translating=very sad.

Yes, the Father addressed the Son as God. And Calvin believe that it would be inconsistent to suppose Jesus as inferior to God. As I understand it, it implies they are equal.
Heb 1:9
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
KJV

Hebrews 1:9
9. Wherefore God has appointed him, this applies suitably to Christ, who has adopted us as his joint heirs, though not so in our own right. But he was anointed above us all, as it was beyond measure, while we, each of us, according to a limited portion, as he has divided to each of us. Besides, he was anointed for our sake, in order that we may all draw out of his fatness. Hence he is the Christ, we are Christians proceeding from him, as rivulet from a fountain. But as Christ received this unction when in the flesh, he is said to have been anointed by his God; for it would be inconsistent to suppose him inferior to God, except in his human nature.
(from Calvin's Commentaries)

It is contradictory to say that God has a God and then they are both equal. If God has a God one of them would have to be the Almighty God. The other would not be. So, really, God cannot have a God. Christ DOES have a God, and that God is superior to him. I think you can leave off Calvin's commentaries.

So you don"t believe Heb 1:9?
It's not contradictory, we worship a God Jesus and our worship is not in vain because we do not make doctrines the commandment of man.(Jesus as man only)
I still prefer Calvin, he wrote books used by many. Don't you have commentaries also? I would wonder why if you don't have.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Capbook in post #193]
Do I believe Hebrews 1:9? Yes of course, and it says that Christ has a God.

"Thou [Christ] hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (KJV)

Very clear to me.

[The Tanager]

Why at you asking me about inherency? Did I mention the word or even the notion at all? If you wish to introduced this idea into the conversation , do so and explain upon what basis it is relevant (either to something I said or to an argument you are presenting) I am not obliged to address every random idea you post.

I’m sorry I didn’t make my point clearer. Let me know if it’s still not clear after this. We are talking about what ‘apaugasma’ means in Hebrews 1:3. Working off of Strong’s, I claimed it meant ‘brightness’ or ‘radiance’. You seem to think it means ‘reflected brightness’. I’m asking you where you get the ‘reflected’ part from. Is it inherent (i.e., a part of the definition itself)f? Or is it not inherent, but still necessary given the context of the sentence?

That may be what YOU are talking about, *I* am talking about what notions the early Jewish Christians had of elohim (notions which may well have been in the mind of Thomas at the time of the ressurection)

We were both talking about how Thomas probably called Jesus my elohim (or the Aramaic equivalent, if it’s different), but that John translated that into Greek as Thomas saying my theos and not my angelos.

Yes, elohim can refer to “spirit beings” and some angelic elohim came in human form, but in Greek they are called angelos, so this point is irrelevant to what Thomas was saying about Jesus after the resurrection.

When you say "context" do you mean the verses outside of verse 13.

Context includes at least the verse itself, the surrounding verses, the historical context, and the wider Biblical understanding.

[JehovahsWitness]

... We are talking about what ‘apaugasma’ means in Hebrews 1:3. Working off of Strong’s, I claimed it meant ‘brightness’ or ‘radiance’. You seem to think it means ‘reflected brightness’. I’m asking you where you get the ‘reflected’ part from.

From ....

... is irrelevant to what Thomas was saying about Jesus after the resurrection

How can what Thomas said be irrelevant in a question about what Thomas said? Have you forgotten your question below ?

4. Why does Thomas call Jesus "my God" (John 20:28) and Jesus not correct him? What evidence do you have that the Jewish disciples, at this time, called honored, powerful people “god”?

... the Jews were okay with calling angels and other humans “elohim” and weren’t concerned about breaking the first commandment in doing so.

I do think the verse alone shows the Lamb being worshiped because I think ascribing praise, honor, glory, and power for ever and ever are statements of worship ...

I’m not saying those words are, inherently, synonyms of worship. ...

Taking the verse in isolation, you claim that, while praise, honor, glory, and power are not inherently, synonyms of worship, Rev 5:13 ( the verse alone ) does prove the lamb is worshipped. How (I repeat: without going outside of the verse to other verses in the bible), can that to be so?

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #193]
Do I believe Hebrews 1:9? Yes of course, and it says that Christ has a God.

"Thou [Christ] hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (KJV)

Very clear to me.

You did not include what I underlined in your reply.
Jesus is true God 1 John 5:20.

[The Tanager]

From ....

Yes, now support that is correct, especially since most scholars, when translating the verse, don’t put ‘reflected’ in there.

How can what Thomas said be irrelevant in a question about what Thomas said? Have you forgotten your question below ?

That is not what I said was irrelevant. I said the broader Hebrew meaning of elohim is irrelevant since we are talking about what John wrote in Greek about what Thomas said. The Greek language distinguished two senses of the Hebrew elohim with two different words theos and angelos. The only way the broader Hebrew meaning is relevant to our particular point of disagreement here is if you think John got Thomas wrong. Do you think John misunderstood Thomas and should have written angelos instead of theos?

Taking the verse in isolation, you claim that, while praise, honor, glory, and power are not inherently, synonyms of worship, Rev 5:13 ( the verse alone ) does prove the lamb is worshipped. How (I repeat: without going outside of the verse to other verses in the bible), can that to be so?

You even betray that you think these words naturally portray worship because you think worship is being offered to the One seated on the throne through these words. When every creature that exists sings something like “praise, honor, glory, and ruling power forever and ever” it sounds like all other Biblical worship.

On top of that, no matter how many times you repeat it, we can’t restrict ourselves to this verse alone. Verse 14 explicitly says the four living creatures and the elders join in on the act and worship.

[JehovahsWitness]

From ....

Yes, now support that is correct, especially since most scholars, when translating the verse, don’t put ‘reflected’ in there.

A translation doesn't necessarily carry the full meaning of the original language; which is why we look to Greek language experts to enlighten us as to the meaning of the original Greek word. This is particularly useful when (as is the case with Paul) a word is unique in scripture. I have provided the support for the meaning of the original Greek (Paul did not write in English) if you contest these experts are wrong, provide your sources.

How can what Thomas said be irrelevant in a question about what Thomas said?

That is not what I said was irrelevant. I said the broader Hebrew meaning of elohim is irrelevant ...

How can "broader Hebrew meaning of elohim be irrelevant" when Thomas would have been familiar with broader Hebrew meaning of elohim when he called Jesus elohim? In short, If we are seeking to understand what Thomas meant when he called Jesus "his elohim " we have to examine all the word elohim meant for Thomas in particular and the early Hebrew disciples at the time they encountered the risen Christ.

When every creature that exists sings something like “praise, honor, glory, and ruling power forever and ever” it sounds like all other Biblical worship

That is because all those element can be parts of worship **IF** direct to ALMIGHTY God. However, since you yourself admit that those words are not inherently, synonyms of worship, what (in the verse alone) establishes they are are intended as worship (rather than respectful hommage) when directed at the Lamb?

...no matter how many times you repeat it, we can’t restrict ourselves to this verse alone.

We can if YOU claim the verse alone is enough Note the following exchange (in brown)...

...I said we don't have enough information within that specific verse ie based on Rev 5:13 alone, taken in isolation, it is impossible to say if the lamb is being worshipped or not. ....

.... I do think the verse alone shows the Lamb being worshiped ...

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Capbook in post #193]
Do I believe Hebrews 1:9? Yes of course, and it says that Christ has a God.

"Thou [Christ] hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (KJV)

Very clear to me.

You did not include what I underlined in your reply.
Jesus is true God 1 John 5:20.

So what does your underlining mean? It is obvious that the verse is saying that Jesus has a God.

IJohn 5:20 is not referring to Jesus Christ, as John also mentions the Son of God in the same verse. The SON of God. Therefore, the last sentence is referring to the Father, YHWH.

"...we are in union with the true one [God], by means of His Son Jesus Christ." Whose Son is Jesus? "This is the true God and life everlasting." God is the Father, not Jesus Christ.