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]

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.

I’m not speculating, I’m sharing what God inspired scripture to say about what Thomas thought of Jesus. I believe God was concerned with getting that right for His Greek speaking followers. You apparently do not. Okay, we can move on.

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.

It’s not that these scholars are saying apaugasma can equally mean either, but they are noting the different thoughts and coming down on one side or the other. In the emitting light option, you are treating the light and the source as two distinct things, but the rays of the sun are not a second, distinct thing from a different source (the sun); they are one thing.

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

No. Do you?

No. Okay, can you then please clarify why you think the words in Rev 5:13 are worship to the One seated on the throne, but not the Lamb? If it’s not because those words can only be worship if directed to Almighty God, then why is it? An answer like “see post such-and-such” will not be helpful.

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?

The “central point” being referred to isn’t (1) the words are not inherently synonyms of worship (we agree there), but (2) since those words are not inherently synonyms of worship, we can’t say Rev 5:13 shows the Lamb is being worshiped (if we take Rev 5:13 in isolation). We don’t agree on (2).

[JehovahsWitness]

... I’ll move on

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

I’m not speculating, I’m sharing what God inspired scripture to say about what Thomas thought of Jesus.

Yes, inspired scripture has Thomas call Jesus his God (Hebrew Elohim/Greek theos). What Thomas thought at the time is obviously contingent, not on subsequent translations of his words but on what was in his head at the time. We cannot read Thomas mind but it is reasonable to say it is likely he thought of the word (elohim) in line with popular usage at the time which included spirits (capable of appearing in human form and human beings*).

* your claim of only "false" human being is ad hoc and scripturally untenable

It’s not that these scholars are saying apaugasma can equally mean either...

Did I say the word "equally"?

on the emitting light option, you are treating the light and the source as two distinct things, but the rays of the sun are not a second, distinct thing from a different source (the sun); they are one thing.

[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

... can you then please clarify why you think the words in Rev 5:13 are worship to the One seated on the throne, but not the Lamb?

I prefer to not discuss my personal beliefs, I'm interested in a neutral discussion on the bible & and related (biblical sources ) alone. Please restricted your questions to the words in the bible rather than solicit my personal beliefs system. I'd appreciate if you rephrase the question accordingly.

(2) since those words are not inherently synonyms of worship, we can’t say Rev 5:13 shows the Lamb is being worshiped (if we take Rev 5:13 in isolation). We don’t agree on (2).

True: I have repeatedly tried my very best to get you to articulate exactly how this can be done without success. The most I have been able to glean from your posts amounts to : since the words CAN (and often are) associated with worship they must here be worship when directed at the Lamb. And this despite the fact that the words are not automatically to be considered part of worship when directed to someone other than Almighty God.

[The Tanager]

Yes, inspired scripture has Thomas call Jesus his God (Hebrew Elohim/Greek theos). What Thomas thought at the time is obviously contingent, not on subsequent translations of his words but on what was in his head at the time. We cannot read Thomas mind but it is reasonable to say it is likely he thought of the word (elohim) in line with popular usage at the time which included spirits (capable of appearing in human form and human beings*).

* your claim of only "false" human being is ad hoc and scripturally untenable

First, I never claimed elohim meant a false human being. Second, Greek had words that could be used to mean a more general ‘spirit’ or ‘spiritual being’. Third, elohim isn’t just a general term like you are treating it, it could mean one of two (or three depending on how you want to categorize things) senses depending on the context. When Thomas called Jesus my elohim he meant one of those two/three senses. And if the Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah, then Thomas called Jesus a god (or false god), not an angel when using the term elohim.

[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

Conybeare compares it to light from the sun. Sunlight is not a separate thing distinct from the sun even though it can be said to originate from a source. The light and the source are the same substance/essence, not distinct entities.

I prefer to not discuss my personal beliefs, I'm interested in a neutral discussion on the bible & and related (biblical sources ) alone. Please restricted your questions to the words in the bible rather than solicit my personal beliefs system. I'd appreciate if you rephrase the question accordingly.

Okay…can you please clarify why the words in Rev 5:13 show worship of the One seated on the throne, but not the Lamb?

True: I have repeatedly tried my very best to get you to articulate exactly how this can be done without success. The most I have been able to glean from your posts amounts to : since the words CAN (and often are) associated with worship they must here be worship when directed at the Lamb. And this despite the fact that the words are not automatically to be considered part of worship when directed to someone other than Almighty God.

That wasn’t my argument. I said (1) your thoughts about the One being seated on the throne betrays that you think the words themselves naturally portray worship and (2) the words themselves sounds like other Biblical worship. You also still haven’t supported that it is a fact that the words aren’t worship when directed to someone other than Almighty God.

[JehovahsWitness]

... elohim ....could mean one of two (or three depending on how you want to categorize things) senses depending on the context. When Thomas called Jesus my elohim he meant one of those two/three senses. And if the Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah, then Thomas called Jesus a god (or false god)..

Yes, Thomas called Jesus a god [elohim] so on that we can agree.

...the other early Christians didn’t understand elohim to mean ‘gods’. It is a wider term that means something like “spiritual beings,” ...

Conybeare compares it to light from the sun. Sunlight is not a separate thing distinct from the sun even though it can be said to originate from a source. The light and the source are the same substance/essence, not distinct entities

You say "it can be said to originate from a source" , do you have any reason to disagree with the conclusion of Conybeare et al who say word carrys the meaning of that "which originates from a source" ?

STRONGS #541


Dods: apaugasma may mean either what is flashed forth, or what is flashed back: either 'ray' or 'reflection...

True: I have repeatedly tried my very best to get you to articulate exactly how this can be done without success. The most I have been able to glean from your posts amounts to : since the words CAN (and often are) associated with worship they must here be worship when directed at the Lamb. And this despite the fact that the words are not automatically to be considered part of worship when directed to someone other than Almighty God.

That wasn’t my argument. I said ... the words themselves sounds like other Biblical worship.

So? So What?! If the words could not be anything but worship (ie were inherently words of worship) that could constitute a solid argument, but since this is NOT the case, upon what basis do you suggest that because "the words themselves sounds like other Biblical worship" that must mean the Lamb is worshipped (as opposed to simply praised, honour , recognised etc) ?

[The Tanager]

Yes, Thomas called Jesus a god [elohim] so on that we can agree.

Thomas called Jesus an elohim, which means Thomas was either calling Jesus a (1) god, (2) false god, or (3) angel. You argue it was (3). The inspired word of God disagrees with you because the Greek language had a way to distinguish (1) and (2) from (3) and (3) was not chosen. So, either you are wrong or the inspired word of God is wrong.

You say "it can be said to originate from a source" , do you have any reason to disagree with the conclusion of Conybeare et al who say word carrys the meaning of that "which originates from a source" ?

I don’t mean that it might originate from a source or it might not. I’m saying that when we talk about sunlight originating from the sun, we shouldn’t let the language trick us into thinking “originating from a source” treats the light and the source as two separate, distinct things.

So? So What?! If the words could not be anything but worship (ie were inherently words of worship) that could constitute a solid argument, but since this is NOT the case, upon what basis do you suggest that because "the words themselves sounds like other Biblical worship" that must mean the Lamb is worshipped (as opposed to simply praised, honour , recognised etc) ?

If the combination of words used in Rev 5:13 sounds like how the ancient Hebrews and early Christians worshiped God, then it makes sense that this would be another example. There aren't any other examples of them using this kind of phrasing on anyone else. The same terms that clearly mean something else in those contexts (like the scriptures you quoted), yes, but not of them using the same overall phrasing.

Also, will you answer my re-worded question to you? Can you please clarify why the words in Rev 5:13 show worship of the One seated on the throne, but not the Lamb?

[JehovahsWitness]

Thomas called Jesus an elohim...

And you went on to say ...

... if the Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah, then Thomas called Jesus a god (or false god)..

Did you not write those words?

I don’t mean that {snip}

So to clarify : Do you disagree with the definition provided by Conybeare et al that say the word refers to that which originate from a source. Yes or no?

If the combination of words used in Rev 5:13 sounds like how the ancient Hebrews and early Christians worshiped God, then it makes sense that this would be another example.

Unless the words themselves are not inherently words of worship; that being the case their being directed at someone other than the Almighty may or may not indicate worship.

... but not of them using the same overall phrasing.

Nonsense, if words are not inherently words of worship, their "combination" is totally irrelevant ; otherwise its like saying 2+3+7 = 12 but 3+7+2 does not. That's an ad hoc "rule" that I suspect you just made up.

Can you please clarify why the words in Rev 5:13 show worship of the One seated on the throne, but not the Lamb?

Where did I make such a claim?

[The Tanager]

Did you not write those words?

And words you snipped out. I'm done playing that game.

So to clarify : Do you disagree with the definition provided by Conybeare et al that say the word refers to that which originate from a source. Yes or no?

I am fine with that being part of the definition.

Nonsense, if words are not inherently words of worship, their "combination" is totally irrelevant ; otherwise its like saying 2+3+7 = 12 but 3+7+2 does not. That's an ad hoc "rule" that I suspect you just made up.

First, sentences and mathematical equations aren't analogical in that way. Second, you misunderstand the point. It's about how context affects the meaning of a word or group of words.

Can you please clarify why the words in Rev 5:13 show worship of the One seated on the throne, but not the Lamb?

Where did I make such a claim?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, then. So, in Rev 5:13, the One on the throne isn't being worshiped? Or He is, but not because of the words?

[JehovahsWitness]

And words you snipped out. I'm done playing that game.

It's not game, you said something ( I did not misquote you), I understood the rest of your post but there were five words that confused me, so I am asking what you meant by. "Thomas called Jesus a god"

You may regret you wrote those words, it may be a typo, you can even say you made a mistake and would like to rephrase, but there is no reason to ignore or mislabel a legitimate question about them.

I admit I was surprises to read them, but lets face it, if I wrote, somewhere in the middle of my post "Jesus is Almighty God, YHWH" , we both know you would ask me about those 5 specific words.

I am fine with that being part of the definition

What do you mean by "fine"? Do you contest all or part of the defintions {that you yourself provided by the way} as inaccurate or do you accept them as being accurtate? Contest or accept?

... you misunderstand the point. It's about how context affects the meaning of a word or group of words.

I agree,. Unfortunately for you you claim that you can establish from the verse alone (ie. without reference to the surrounding verses , the biblical record as a whole or indeed and other contextual reference) that the words are directed to the Lamb as worship rather than as respectful reverance.

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

Perhaps I misunderstood you ...

Evidently. I Will direct you to my earlier statement which reads as follows ...

...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. ....

...in Rev 5:13, the One on the throne isn't being worshiped? Or He is, but not because of the words?

Are we taking the verse in isolation or not? If not, and we can establish with other verses that the One on the throne is the Almighty, then yes, we could probably conclude The One on the throne is being worshiped : not because if the words but because of the object.

[The Tanager]

It's not game, you said something ( I did not misquote you), I understood the rest of your post but there were five words that confused me, so I am asking what you meant by. "Thomas called Jesus a god"

In using elohim Thomas could have been calling Jesus (1) God, (2) a false god, or (3) an angel. The inspired word of God rules out (3). Thomas didn’t think Jesus was a false god. That leaves (1).

What do you mean by "fine"? Do you contest all or part of the defintions {that you yourself provided by the way} as inaccurate or do you accept them as being accurtate? Contest or accept?

Accept.

I agree,. Unfortunately for you you claim that you can establish from the verse alone (ie. without reference to the surrounding verses , the biblical record as a whole or indeed and other contextual reference) that the words are directed to the Lamb as worship rather than as respectful reverance.

We have been talking past each other with what “from the verse alone” means, then. By your definition, I don’t know how any verse would mean anything since context always plays a role in meaning. Okay, so now let’s look at the verse in context and actually talk about what it means.

Are we taking the verse in isolation or not? If not, and we can establish with other verses that the One on the throne is the Almighty, then yes, we could probably conclude The One on the throne is being worshiped : not because if the words but because of the object.

Two questions here. First, you’ve said other things than Almighty God can be worshiped, right? Second, if it’s not because of the words than even when someone says “The Almighty God doesn’t exist” that would be an act of worship by your reasoning since the object is there, wouldn’t it?

[JehovahsWitness]

In using elohim Thomas could have been calling Jesus (1) God, (2) a false god, or (3) an angel.

You yourself said a better translation for elohim than "god" would be "spirit beings" (presumably in the in the context of non-physical entities) .

.. elohim can refer to “spirit beings” ...

So if we take the elohim in heaven we have (1) The supreme "spirit being" and (2) lesser "spirit beings" . That Paul identifies those of the latter ( that act as "messengers" ) as angels, does not mean that there cannot be a spirit beings of higher rank than the angles but lower than the Supreme one. Indeed scripture indicates this is in fact the case.

What do you mean by "fine"? Do you contest all or part of the defintions {that you yourself provided by the way} as inaccurate or do you accept them as being accurtate? Contest or accept?

Accept.

Then we have Paul describe Jesus as a light that originates from a source.

We have been talking past each other with what “from the verse alone” means, then. By your definition, I don’t know how any verse would mean anything since context always plays a role in meaning. ....

Fine. But could you clarify what you meant when you said "from the verse alone" so I don't make the same mistake again.

you’ve said other things than Almighty God can be worshiped, right?

Yes we call that idolatry.

..., if it’s not because of the words than even when someone says “The Almighty God doesn’t exist” that would be an act of worship by your reasoning since the object is there, wouldn’t it?

Il sorry I do not understand the question