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]

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.

You have provided one expert. Bagster, Abbott-Smith, Conybeare and Howson, Dods and Robertson don’t seem to think it necessarily includes the idea of reflection. Why do you think Thayer is correct?

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?

Because John relayed this to us in Greek, which uses more narrow terms. Again, do you think John misunderstood Thomas? It is a simple question. Yes or no?

That is because all those element can be parts of worship **IF** direct to ALMIGHTY God.

Why only if directed to Almighty God?

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

While I think this verse alone is enough, let’s assume I am wrong. Your takeaway from this will be, what, yeah the Bible teaches the Lamb is worshiped, but not if we take Rev 5:13 in complete isolation? I’ll take that.

[JehovahsWitness]

Bagster, Abbott-Smith, Conybeare and Howson, Dods and Robertson don’t seem to think it necessarily includes the idea of reflection.

Please provide adequate preference (ie. quote or link /reference were specific entry you are refering to can be read)

... John relayed this to us in Greek ...

So what?! Was John in Thomas' head at the time, dictating what Thomas could and could not think? How does Greek have any relevance to the ideas in the head of Thomas that of his his associates, learnt from the Torah. Are you suggesting Thomas (and even John himself) suddenly forgot the all he had been taught from the Hebrew bible because of the Greek language? YHWH (the divine name) didnt exist in Greek, so does that mean all the Hebrews suddenly had a nameless God? The entire Hebrew canon was translated into the Greek language - does that mean that all the ideas in it had to be narrowed , changed , adapted or to reflect any subsequent linguistic limitations?

This idea that the language to which than account is translated has any bearing on the events themselves is beyond ludicrous, its illogical and unscriptural.

That is because all those element can be parts of worship **IF** direct to ALMIGHTY God.

Why only if directed to Almighty God?

Because all those things offered to anyone else amounts to recognition of their position and/or qualities and by definition all positions and/or qualities are inferior to the Supreme One.

While I think this verse alone is enough, let’s assume I am wrong. ...

No, lets continue until we establish if you are or not. If you CLAIM that the verse alone is enough, prove it . Point to words in the verse that unequivocally establish the worship of the lamb. Having already concedes that ...

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

I propose that it cannot be done.

[The Tanager]

Bagster, Abbott-Smith, Conybeare and Howson, Dods and Robertson don’t seem to think it necessarily includes the idea of reflection.

Please provide adequate preference (ie. quote or link /reference were specific entry you are refering to can be read)

Bagster, The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 36
Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 45
Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 499
Dods, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, The Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. IV, p. 250
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. V, p. 335

So what?! Was John in Thomas' head at the time, dictating what Thomas could and could not think? How does Greek have any relevance to the ideas in the head of Thomas that of his his associates, learnt from the Torah. Are you suggesting Thomas (and even John himself) suddenly forgot the all he had been taught from the Hebrew bible because of the Greek language? YHWH (the divine name) didnt exist in Greek, so does that mean all the Hebrews suddenly had a nameless God? The entire Hebrew canon was translated into the Greek language - does that mean that all the ideas in it had to be narrowed , changed , adapted or to reflect any subsequent linguistic limitations?

This idea that the language to which than account is translated has any bearing on the events themselves is beyond ludicrous, its illogical and unscriptural.

No, I’m not suggesting Thomas and John forgot Hebrew because of the Greek language. I’m not saying they forgot God’s Hebrew name. I’m not saying any idea is being narrowed, changed, or adapted to reflect subsequent linguistic limitations. I’m saying that Greek was better suited to avoid any confusion between the sense of elohim that Thomas was applying to Jesus. If we had the story in Hebrew and elohim was used, you’d be able to say “we don’t know what sense Thomas was talking about”. But we have it in Greek, which clears that ambiguity up. John 20:28 says Thomas was calling Jesus the theos sense when Thomas spoke the word elohim. I’m going by what scripture says, not being unscriptural. Do you not trust John (and Jehovah who inspired him to write his gospel) to have known the distinction within elohim? Yes or no? Do you not trust John (and Jehovah who inspired him) to have chosen the correct Greek equivalent? Yes or no?

Because all those things offered to anyone else amounts to recognition of their position and/or qualities and by definition all positions and/or qualities are inferior to the Supreme One.

In post 130, you said one can worship things that aren’t God. Are you saying that ‘worship’ is when one recognizes X’s position and/or qualities as inferior to nothing else (so that one can falsely worship something because it misunderstands X’s position and/or qualities) or that ‘worship,’ by definition, can only be offered to the Supreme God (so that false ‘worship’ shouldn’t be called ‘worship’ at all)?

No, lets continue until we establish if you are or not. If you CLAIM that the verse alone is enough, prove it . Point to words in the verse that unequivocally establish the worship of the lamb. Having already concedes that ...

I did in post 198. If you’ve nothing new to say to that, I don’t either and we can move onto the the other question that includes immediate context like verse 14.

[JehovahsWitness]

Bagster, Abbott-Smith, Conybeare and Howson, Dods and Robertson don’t seem to think it necessarily includes the idea of reflection.

Please provide adequate preference (ie. quote or link /reference were specific entry you are refering to can be read)

Bagster, The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 36
Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 45
Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 499
Dods, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, The Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. IV, p. 250
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. V, p. 335

Can you take a screenshot or quote the relevant passage (or provide a link so I can "click and read") . Thanks.

.. I’m saying that Greek was better suited to avoid any confusion between the sense of elohim that Thomas was applying to Jesus.

So you claim. Even if that were true ( which you have not proved) its still irrelevat: Thomas' religion came from the Hebrew scripture. We have established this religion held certain fundamental concepts to be true and and this holds true whether or not English or Greek or Chinese can better express his thoughts or not.

• The fact is Thomas called Jesus "his elohim"

• The fact is " elohim" at the time he used the word carried certain meanings in the language of the scared text

• The fact is it WHICH of these meanings (the ones in Thomas head, aquired through his religious traditions) that we are trying to determine

Unless you are suggesting the future retrospectively somehow effected Thomas thinking, how the gospel writers later chose to record the event is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the above .

In post 130, you said one can worship things that aren’t God. Are you saying that ‘worship’ is when one recognizes X’s position and/or qualities as inferior to nothing else (so that one can falsely worship something because it misunderstands X’s position and/or qualities) or that ‘worship,’ by definition, can only be offered to the Supreme God (so that false ‘worship’ shouldn’t be called ‘worship’ at all)

Answer post # 127

No, lets continue until we establish if you are or not. If you CLAIM that the verse alone is enough, prove it . Point to words in the verse that unequivocally establish the worship of the lamb. Having already concedes that ...

I did in post 198.

Responded to post 199

If you’ve nothing new to say to that, I don’t either ...

What you said is enough!

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

we can agree that the words in Rev 13:5 are not inherently, synonyms of worship and as such could be addressed to the lamb in recognition of his position without necessarily that position being The Supreme Almighty.

Taken in isolation, whether or not this is the case cannot be established from this verse alone. Agreed?

[The Tanager]

Can you take a screenshot or quote the relevant passage (or provide a link so I can "click and read") . Thanks.

Bagster: an effulgence

Abbott-Smith: of light beaming from a luminous body, radiance, effulgence

Conybeare: not 'brightness', but emanation, as of light from the sun. The word and idea occur in Philo.

Dods: apaugasma may mean either what is flashed forth, or what is flashed back: either 'ray' or 'reflection', Calvin, Beza, Thayer, Menegoz prefer the latter meaning. Thus Grotius has 'repercussus divinae majestatis, qualis est solis in nube'. The Greek fathers, on the other hand, uniformly adopt the meaning 'effulgence'.... So in the Nicene Creed "The word 'effulgence' seems to mean no rays of light streaming from a body in their connection with that body or as part of it, still less the reflection of these rays caused by their falling upon another body, but rather rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves" (Davidson).... Philo's use of the word lends colour to this meaning...

Robertson: "to emit brightness (compares 2 Cor 4:4), here only in the NT but in Wisdom 7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both sense are true of Christ...

Even if that were true, its still irrelevat: Thomas' religion came from the Hebrew scripture. We have established this religion held certain fundamental concepts to be true and and this holds true whether or not English or Greek or Chinese can better express his thoughts or not.
The fact is Thomas called Jesus "his elohim"
The fact is " elohim" at the time he used the word carried certain meanings in the language of the scared text
The fact is it is these meanings (The ones in Thomas head, aquired through his religious traditions) that we are trying to determine
Unless you are suggesting the future retrospectively somehow effected Thomas thinking, how the gospel writers later chose to record the event is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the above .

No, I’m suggesting that the Bible is the inspired word of God and, so, John can’t have mischaracterized what Thomas meant when calling Jesus his elohim. That is very relevant to what Thomas was saying about Jesus. Do you believe John 20:28 is not inspired by God? It’s a simple question. Yes or no?

In post 130, you said one can worship things that aren’t God. Are you saying that ‘worship’ is when one recognizes X’s position and/or qualities as inferior to nothing else (so that one can falsely worship something because it misunderstands X’s position and/or qualities) or that ‘worship,’ by definition, can only be offered to the Supreme God (so that false ‘worship’ shouldn’t be called ‘worship’ at all)

Answer post # 127

Which looks like the latter, but when I interpreted it as such in post 137: “it sounds to me like you are saying only the Almighty God can be worshiped”, you (in post 138) said you weren’t saying that.

Responded to post 199

To which I responded and to which you responded and so forth. Like I said, if you’ve nothing new to add here, then neither do I and we can move onto the question that includes immediate context, like verse 14.

What you said is enough!

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

we can agree that the words in Rev 13:5 are not inherently, synonyms of worship and as such could be addressed to the lamb in recognition of his position without necessarily that position being The Supreme Almighty.
Taken in isolation, whether or not this is the case cannot be established from this verse alone. Agreed?

You keep clipping my quotes, so you aren’t working off of all I’ve said.

[JehovahsWitness]

Can you take a screenshot or quote the relevant passage (or provide a link so I can "click and read") . Thanks.

working on how to insert screenshots...

You can just provide the links along with where to find the words you want to draw my attention to. Or it might be easier to simply copy out the words you want to use as a direct quote.

....John can’t have mischaracterized what Thomas meant when calling Jesus his elohim.

John offered no explanation in his narrative, he did not "characterize" or "mischaracterized" he recounted what happened in another language. We call that translating and a translator cannot influence the perceptions of the person whose words are being translated. Especially if that translation comes at least 5 decades after the event.

And if a later translation cannot influence the mind of an individual, we are left with analysing the the words used in the original language (not a later translation of the word). If you are arguing that later Christians upon recieving the written gospels in Greek later changed their view from the traditional Hebrew to another , that's fine (and probably for another thread) but to try and argue that Thomas and Jesus earliest Hebrew disciples did so before the Christian Greek scriptures even existed is untenable.

.. when I interpreted it as such in post 137: “it sounds to me like you are saying only the Almighty God can be worshiped”, you (in post 138) said you weren’t saying that.

So? What is the point you are trying to make?

You keep clipping my quotes, so you aren’t working off of all I’ve said.

The elipsis removes nothing that would change the central point.

[The Tanager]

You can just provide the links along with where to find the words you want to draw my attention to. Or it might be easier to simply copy out the words you want to use as a direct quote.

I added them in the previous post, but then saw your response and so I thought I’d add them here:

Bagster: an effulgence

Abbott-Smith: of light beaming from a luminous body, radiance, effulgence

Conybeare: not 'brightness', but emanation, as of light from the sun. The word and idea occur in Philo.

Dods: apaugasma may mean either what is flashed forth, or what is flashed back: either 'ray' or 'reflection', Calvin, Beza, Thayer, Menegoz prefer the latter meaning. Thus Grotius has 'repercussus divinae majestatis, qualis est solis in nube'. The Greek fathers, on the other hand, uniformly adopt the meaning 'effulgence'.... So in the Nicene Creed "The word 'effulgence' seems to mean no rays of light streaming from a body in their connection with that body or as part of it, still less the reflection of these rays caused by their falling upon another body, but rather rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves" (Davidson).... Philo's use of the word lends colour to this meaning...

Robertson: "to emit brightness (compares 2 Cor 4:4), here only in the NT but in Wisdom 7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both sense are true of Christ...

John offered no explanation in his narrative, he did not "characterize" or "mischaracterized" he recounted what happened in another language. We call that translating and a translator cannot influence the perceptions of the person whose words are being translated. Especially if that translation comes at least 5 decades after the event.

John had the choice between theos and angelos and just leaving it as elohim. He is either correct or wrong about how Thomas (had he spoken in Greek) would have said it. You continue to refuse to answer my simple question. It sounds like you think John got it wrong, but are trying not to say those words because you believe in the inspiration of scripture. So, I’ll move on.

So? What is the point you are trying to make?

That you aren’t being straightforward with some of your answers to my questions. Do you believe only the Almighty God can be worshiped? Yes or no?

The elipsis removes nothing that would change the central point.

You are using me saying the words aren’t inherently synonyms of worship to try to say I seem to be agreeing with you. The stuff you clipped out definitely changes that because I am not agreeing with you.

[JehovahsWitness]

John had the choice between theos and angelos and just leaving it as elohim. He is either correct or wrong about how Thomas (had he spoken in Greek) would have said it. You continue to refuse to answer my simple question. ..

Because your so called "simple question" is a a non sequitur. Even in this conclusion here you forced into hypothetical speculation (what Thomas might have said, had he spoken Greek). It is a ridiculous argument to present in response to the question why did Thomas say what he did in fact say (which there is little doubt was call Jesus (in Hebrew or Aramaic) elohim. To go from why did he say what he did, to : "why might he have said what he did not say had he indeed chosen to say it", is the quite frankly not worthy of a response in a serious discussion.

If the question was what translational choices were the Christian Greek writers faced with, there would perhaps have been reason to give audience to your rhetoric, although certainly you have, as yet not presented a scholarly or even logical basis To suggest the greek theos must refer either to the Supreme Creator or an angel (as if the Greek Septuagint was devoid of various meanings of elohim in the original). But since you have thrown everything at this point except the kitchen sink , I was loathe to call you up on that particular false dichotomy.

Red Herrings aside, you have at least moved from your original claim that the Hebrews (and by implication the first Hebrew Christians) were unfamiliar with a supreme and lesser gods , to recognising they were indeed entirely familiar with the notion. And thus, at the very least, it it reasonable to conclude Thomas utterance does not have to automatically mean he was refering to the risen Christ as Almighty God.

... I’ll move on

I sincerely hope that you can be trusted to keep to your word and do just that !

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”?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[1]Bagster: an effulgence

EFFULGENCE
ray from an original light body - Thomas Robertson's Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

[2] Abbott-Smith: of light beaming from a luminous body, radiance, effulgence

[3] Conybeare: not 'brightness', but emanation, as of light from the sun. The word and idea occur in Philo.

EMANATION

1.something which originates or issues from a source

Dods: apaugasma may mean either what is flashed forth, or what is flashed back: either 'ray' or 'reflection', [1]Calvin , [2]Beza, [3]Thayer, [4]Menegoz prefer the latter meaning. Thus [5]Grotius has 'repercussus divinae majestatis, qualis est solis in nube'.



[4]The Greek fathers on the other hand, uniformly adopt the meaning 'effulgence'.... So in the Nicene Creed "The word 'effulgence' seems to mean no rays of light streaming from a body in their connection with that body or as part of it, still less the reflection of these rays caused by their falling upon another body, but rather rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves" (Davidson).... Philo's use of the word lends colour to this meaning...

***Robertson: "to emit brightness (compares 2 Cor 4:4), here only in the NT but in Wisdom 7:26 and in Philo. It can mean either reflected brightness, refulgence (Calvin, Thayer) or effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold. Both sense are true of Christ...

CONCLUSION apaugasma can mean either reflected light or emmitted light from an original source; in either case it depicts Christ as the as the light from a source, not the source itself.

Do you believe only the Almighty God can be worshiped? Yes or no?

No. Do you?

You are using me saying the words aren’t inherently synonyms of worship to try to say I seem to be agreeing with you.

No I was using it to say *I* agree with you ... do you mind?



JW

[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.

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.

What I underlined means Jesus is God. "therefore God even thy God"

And in 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God came so we could recognize and understand the truth of God — what a gift! — and we are living in the truth itself, in God's Son, Jesus Christ. This Jesus is both True God and Real Life.
(from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language)