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?

[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)

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.

Even Barnes understand this verse as according to the construction, the thought would be carried on which is suggested in Ps 45:6, of a direct address to the Messiah as God.

Psalms 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

[Thou lovest righteousness ...] See this verse explained in the notes at Heb 1:9, where it is applied to the Messiah. The word "God" is rendered in the margin "O God"; "O God, thy God, hath anointed thee," etc. According to this construction, the thought would be carried on which is suggested in Ps 45:6, of a direct address to the Messiah as God. This construction is not necessary, but it is the most obvious one. The Messiah-the Lord Jesus-though he is described as God himself (John 1:1, et al.), yet addresses God as "his" God, John 20:17. As Mediator, as appearing in human form, as commissioned to perform the work of redemption, and to subdue the world to the divine authority, it was proper thus to address his Father as "his" God, and to, acknowledge Him as the source of all authority and law.
(from Barnes' Notes.)

[JehovahsWitness]

Even Barnes understand this verse as according to the construction, the thought would be carried on which is suggested in Ps 45:6, of a direct address to the Messiah as God.

Then Barnes is wrong ; the Messiah is appointed by God he is not Almighty God himself.

[Capbook]

Even Barnes understand this verse as according to the construction, the thought would be carried on which is suggested in Ps 45:6, of a direct address to the Messiah as God.

Then Barnes is wrong ; the Messiah is appointed by God he is not Almighty God himself.

I would prefer Barnes, he wrote books used by many.
Charles Spurgeon recommended Barnes' notes, calling them “Thoroughly good.” He added, “Using these notes constantly, we are more and. more struck with their value. (quoted online)

[JehovahsWitness]

I would prefer Barnes

I prefer Jesus.

[Brightfame52]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1]

It is True that Jesus as the Man Christ Jesus, the Mediator and Surety of Gods People 1 Tm 2:5

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


He has a God that He is in Covenant with, for such the scripture reveals,

and yet in His Divine Nature and Essence scripture reveals He is God Jn 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You must not accept one scripture revelation and reject the other,not wise or consistent

[onewithhim]

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...

To throw in my $.02: The disciples did make distinctions between Almighty God and lesser gods.

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,, (as there be gods many and lords many) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (I Corinthians 8:5,6, KJV)

So it really looks like they did say that there are many gods but they were inferior to God Almighty.

[onewithhim]

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

That verse is scrambled by some translators. Other translators do not believe that Christ is "God over all." It is rendered that way by those that already believe that Christ is God. That is bias in translation. The verse, in other versions of the Bible, is translated this way:

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom.9:5, KJV)

"Theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen." (New American Bible)

"Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (American Standard Version)

Even the NIV remarks in a footnote that instead of "Christ who is God over all" it could be translated as "Christ who is over all," leaving out the God part.

"Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (New American Standard Bible)


It is clear that in most translations, including the NIV in the footnote, the verse is not rendered "Christ who is God over all." There is a distinction between Christ and God. Christ is the Messiah, and God blesses someone or, in one version God is blessed. God here is God Almighty, the author of the Bible and the author of the inspired book of Romans. He, the Father, is blessing the Messiah, it would seem, and Christ is not "God over all." In fact, the NAB says that GOD is over all, not the Messiah. It just shows you how muddled the translation can get from the verse as it is presented. It is not a good verse to show that Jesus is God. It can be taken more than one way.

[onewithhim]

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.

[The Tanager]

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

My point was that the idea of ‘reflection’ can be inherent in the word itself or (if it’s not) could still be included in it because of context. I didn’t ask you to support that point. It doesn’t seem a controversial point at all. What I asked you to do was (1) if you think the word inherently includes the idea of ‘reflection’, then support that and (2) if you think the word gains that meaning because of the context, then support that point. If you can’t support either of those views, then ‘reflection’ doesn’t belong in our discussion on Hebrews 1:3.

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.

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?

We were talking about elohim being translated into Greek as theos and angelos, not elohim in Hebrew. Jesus is called a theos, not an angelos.

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 ...

I’m not saying those words are, inherently, synonyms of worship. It’s about context as well. The husband in Proverbs 31:28 isn’t literally saying to his wife “I praise you”; he is talking about how she follows God’s ways well. God, in 1 Samuel 2:30, isn’t literally saying to these humans “I honor you, O great ones”; He is talking about how He will bless those who follow His ways. The ‘glory’ in John 8 is about God backing up Jesus’ claims. Jesus giving His disciples power in Luke 9 is about actually giving them the ability to do miracles, not saying “How powerful you are”.

In Rev 5:13, every creature is not telling the One seated on the throne and the Lamb “you guys follow God’s ways well” and “we are going to give you a lot of good stuff that will make you live the good life” and “we can back up your claims to others” and “here, let me give you some of my power”.

[The Tanager]

To throw in my $.02: The disciples did make distinctions between Almighty God and lesser gods.

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,, (as there be gods many and lords many) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (I Corinthians 8:5,6, KJV)

So it really looks like they did say that there are many gods but they were inferior to God Almighty.

Paul is talking about food being sacrificed to idols and, in verse 4, says "we know an idol in this world is nothing" and "there is no God but one." These gods don't exist. That's why he's okay with Christians eating food sacrificed to them. But some Christians lack this knowledge, still wrongly thinking these are actual gods, and Paul says to give up our rights so that we don't cause them to sin. I think it's clear from the context that these gods aren't seen as real-but-inferior to God Almighty.