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]

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?

It is a noun, so it would be ‘shine’ not ‘shiney’.

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

Yes, the term of elohim/theos has two concepts: a true deity and a false deity. In the Greek language, this means the term didn’t refer to a true but lesser than the Almighty deity.

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.

So, you think that someone other than the Almighty could actually be worshiped by the faithful? I thought you said only the Almighty could be worshiped.

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

It is a noun, so it would be ‘shine’ not ‘shiney’

Correct ... see below

Yes, the term of elohim/theos has two concepts: a true deity and a false deity. In the Greek language, this means the term didn’t refer to a true but lesser than the Almighty deity.

And faithful human judges and faithful angels would be in which catagory?

So, you think that someone other than the Almighty could actually be worshiped by the faithful? I thought you said only the Almighty could be worshiped.

Let's leave what I think aside and stick to the verse in question. I believe I have made it quite clear my conclusion as to verse 13 of CHAPTER five. Do you agree with my conclusion about this verse or not: YES or NO? It's a simple enough question.

[The Tanager]

Correct ... see below

We were using Strong’s which didn’t include the idea of this radiance/brightness being reflected. I’m open to it including the idea of reflection, but I’m going to need to see some reasoning for that.

Yes, the term of elohim/theos has two concepts: a true deity and a false deity. In the Greek language, this means the term didn’t refer to a true but lesser than the Almighty deity.

And faithful human judges and faithful angels would be in which catagory?

Faithful angels are elohim/angelos, a third category. Regarding faithful human judges, I am unaware of a passage other than John 10 that calls unfaithful human judges elohim/theos (which would fall in the "false gods" category), but if you know of others that put human elohim/theos in a different category, I'm open to them.

Let's leave what I think aside and stick to the verse in question. I believe I have made it quite clear my conclusion as to verse 13 of CHAPTER five. Do you agree with my conclusion about this verse or not: YES or NO? It's a simple enough question.

I disagree with your conclusion that we don’t have enough information to come to a conclusion about whether the Lamb is being worshiped in Rev 5:13.

[kjw47]

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.

I see nothing uncivil about that remark.

[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.

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)

Thy fellows at Heb 1:9=angels--Its a quote from Psalm 45:7--Yes God appointed him=God did not say here me have an appointment--same at Rev 1:1--God did not say-here me have a revelation. Always mentioned separate from God.

[JehovahsWitness]

We were using Strong’s which didn’t include the idea of this radiance/brightness being reflected.

We? *I* use a variety of sources ; which in this case are not mutually exclusive.

STRONGS #541

BRIGHTNESS (noun)
the quality or state of giving out or reflecting light - Definitions from Oxford Languages

Faithful angels are elohim/angelos, a third category.

So were the first Hebrew Christians aware of elohim /theos that appeared as "men" (could even eat & drink) but were actually spirit beings in carnal form ?

I disagree with your conclusion that we don’t have enough information to come to a conclusion about whether the Lamb is being worshiped in Rev 5:13.

Firstly I didn't say we don't have enough information ; 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. If you disagree, then feel free to point to the words in the text that prove definitely that Lamb *is* or is not being worshiped.

[The Tanager]

We? *I* use a variety of sources ; which in this case are not mutually exclusive.

We had only agreed about Strong’s, though. If you think the idea of ‘reflection’ is inherent in the word (or supplied by the context), then offer the case for that so we can analyze it.

So were the first Hebrew Christians aware of elohim /theos that appeared as "men" (could even eat & drink) but were actually spirit beings in carnal form?

Not that I am aware of. If you think so, then offer the case for that so we can analyze it.

Firstly I didn't say we don't have enough information ; 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. If you disagree, then feel free to point to the words in the text that prove definitely that Lamb *is* or is not being worshiped.

Thank you for correcting my mistake in understanding what you meant. 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 and those are clearly being offered to the Lamb. To avoid that, I think one has to bring in considerations outside of the verse itself.

[JehovahsWitness]

We? *I* use a variety of sources ; which in this case are not mutually exclusive.

.. If you think the idea of ‘reflection’ is inherent in the word ...

Did I say "inherent" or did I say "not mutually exclusive"?

Not that I am aware of

Are angelic elohim/theos not a kind of "spirit beings" ?

[The Tanager]

.. If you think the idea of ‘reflection’ is inherent in the word ...

Did I say "inherent" or did I say "not mutually exclusive"?

I didn't say you said 'inherent'. I used it because of the point I was sharing. A word can mean (or include the idea of) X either by inherently meaning that or via the specific context. If you think apaugasma has that meaning inherently or in the context of Hebrews 1:3, I'm asking for you to present your case so we can analyze it.

Are angelic elohim/theos not a kind of "spirit beings" ?

As far as I know, there are no angelic elohim/theos; angels are elohim/angelos.

[JehovahsWitness]

I didn't say you said 'inherent'. I used it because of the point I was sharing. ...

Then support your own point; don't ask me to support a point you are sharing.

angels are elohim....

And elohim can refer to "spirit beings" correct? Are angels not "spirit beings" ? And have not such angelic elohim come to earth in human form?

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 ...

Not necessarily ...

PROVERBS 31:28

Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband praises her as well

1 SAMUEL 2:30b

But now Jehovah declares: “It is unthinkable, on my part, because those honoring me I will honor, ..

JOHN 8

Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me

LUKE 9:1
And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases