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]

You provided a Reference from Strong's but it was not for the word under discussion [radiance] . Would you like to provide a reference for that word {radiance} ?

You provided the reference from Strong’s for radiance already in post #152. Are you not happy using that?

The early Jewish disciples of Jesus were familiar with (1) the Supreme Creator elohim/theos, (2) false god/spiritual being elohim/theos, and (3) an aspect of humans that is like (2).

Do you believe the early considered all the Elohim/theos you mentions equal [EQUAL as in of equal power, rank, authority, and influence].

No, they (i.e., the two elohim/theos senses) were not viewed as equal. (1) is of “higher rank” than (2). (3) is a figurative use of (2) concerning how human rulers were using their power unjustly and, therefore, is not a third thing to be ranked against the other two.

Correction: CONCLUSION ON VERSE 13: Given the above corrected/clarified point # 2-6 It is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion whether Rev 5:13 is depticting the lamb as being worshipped or not.

I'm trying to make sure I understand exactly what you are claiming. Do you think theological considerations outside of the text itself can help us come to a definitive conclusion on whether the Lamb was being worshiped?

[JehovahsWitness]

You provided a Reference from Strong's but it was not for the word under discussion [radiance] . Would you like to provide a reference for that word {radiance} ?

You provided the reference from Strong’s for radiance already in post #152. Are you not happy using that?

If you acknowledge Strongs definition, do you agree that that provides is an accurate definition for the Greek word Paul used and we can thus use it as a basis to determine if Paul by using radiance to mean "shine[y]" or not?

Do you believe the early considered all the Elohim/theos you mentions equal [EQUAL as in of equal power, rank, authority, and influence].

No ...

So if one (or more ) were superior and one (or more) inferior would it be accurate to say the first Jewish disciples were indeed familiar with the concept of a higher and lower elohim/theos?

No, they (i.e., the two elohim/theos senses) were not viewed as equal. (1) is of “higher rank” than (2).

The disciples didn’t make distinctions between Almighty God and lesser Gods...

I'm trying to make sure I understand exactly what you are claiming. Do you think theological considerations outside of the text itself can help us come to a definitive conclusion on whether the Lamb was being worshiped?

When you say "outside of the text itself" do you mean outside of the 66 books of the bible? Or outside of the verse itself (but in the bible)?

NOTE It's arguably not appropriate to speak of "definitive conclusions" for things that are not specifically stated in scripture. And even when they are our understanding may need to be adjusted. The best and bible can do is present their beliefs and and convictions along with the the scriptural support for them.

[kjw47]

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.

[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)

[JehovahsWitness]

I've checked Romans 9:5 in Interlinear Bible ...

Dit you find a translation which says Jesus has authority over the Father YHWH ALMIGHTY God ?

[The Tanager]

If you acknowledge Strongs definition, do you agree that that provides is an accurate definition for the Greek word Paul used and we can thus use it as a basis to determine if Paul by using radiance to mean "shine[y]" or not?

I’m not a Greek scholar and I haven’t read scholars on the matter, but as far as I know it provides us an accurate definition which can be used to help us determine if Paul meant “shiny” or not by using that word. We must also take into account the context since words often have various meanings and nuances.

So if one (or more ) were superior and one (or more) inferior would it be accurate to say the first Jewish disciples were indeed familiar with the concept of a higher and lower elohim/theos?

Yes, but superior/inferior and higher/lower have a specific context. You aren’t taking account of that context and, therefore, equivocating on higher/lower. In the elohim/theos context, higher/lower refers to the distinction of true/false. Thus, the first Jewish disciples, in using the “higher/lower” elohim/theos are referring to the true God and false gods. You take the higher/lower out of that context and put it in a new context where you can slide in a true, but inferior god below the Almighty, but higher than the false gods. That’s an equivocation.

No, they (i.e., the two elohim/theos senses) were not viewed as equal. (1) is of “higher rank” than (2).

The disciples didn’t make distinctions between Almighty God and lesser Gods…

Your confusion comes in not realizing why I capitalized the ‘G’ in “lesser Gods” or the equivocation problem I noted above, although with “lesser” rather than “lower”. The disciples did make distinctions between Almighty God and lesser/lower/false gods (notice the lower case ‘g’).

NOTE It's arguably not appropriate to speak of "definitive conclusions" for things that are not specifically stated in scripture. And even when they are our understanding may need to be adjusted. The best and bible can do is present their beliefs and and convictions along with the the scriptural support for them.

I agree; I was simply using your language. We should hold our beliefs with an open mind. I would have worded it (on my own) as something like: “Do you think theological considerations out of the text itself can help us come to the most reasonable conclusion on whether the Lamb was being worshiped?” but I’m open to other ways to word it, if I’ve missed some nuance that is ultimately needed.

When you say "outside of the text itself" do you mean outside of the 66 books of the bible? Or outside of the verse itself (but in the bible)?

My question included both of these options. It seems to me that you think the Lamb can’t be worshiped in Rev 5:13 because (1) true worship can only be given to Almighty God (possibly due to specific scriptures) and (2) you think other scriptures show that the Lamb isn’t Almighty God. Is that accurate of your understanding?

[kjw47]

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.

[otseng]

Thus you put your eternal life into Catholicism translating=very sad.

Moderator Warning



Please cease with the uncivil remarks.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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)

[JehovahsWitness]

We must also take into account the context since words often have various meanings and nuances.

Well the context is connected to glory, Greek experts say shine /brilliance , most translators say the English "radiance" (which means light or heat) so upon what basis do you object to shiney?

source STRONGS #541
*EFFULGENCE: the ability to shine brightly (https://dictionary.cambridge.org )

So if one (or more ) were superior and one (or more) inferior would it be accurate to say the first Jewish disciples were indeed familiar with the concept of a higher and lower elohim/theos?

Yes, but ...{snip}

If the Jewish disciples were indeed familiar with the concept of a higher and lower elohim/theos, is there anything in the language as reported by the inspired writer of Thomas words for Jesus that excluded him meaning a lesser Elohim/ theos*?

* The Greek language did not use capital letters ; and they had absolutely no concept of the English capital letter G, since English didnt exist at the time

It seems to me that you think the Lamb can’t be worshiped in Rev 5:13 because (1) true worship can only be given to Almighty God (possibly due to specific scriptures) and (2) you think other scriptures show that the Lamb isn’t Almighty God. Is that accurate of your understanding?

No - for about the third time in this thread my conclusion regarding the specific text of Rev 5:13 is there is not enough information to come to a conclusion one way or the other. If you challenge that fact please say so and state your reason. If not, please state clearly that you agree with the words undermines above in blue. After which we can go on to discuss other verses or extracanonical Greek language expert input. If we both put our personal beliefs aside and just deal with the words being considered (in this case the single verse of Rev 5:13) it would be more constructive.