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

Translation as a general concept, not necessarily translation in every specific case. Those are two different issues. Since the Hebrews used elohim to refer to God, false gods, and angels, generally speaking, it would be better to translate that term into English as “spiritual beings” to cover all three senses. But, when dealing with specific statements, the context dictates whether elohim is referring to that general sense (i.e., talking about 2 or more of those beings) or a more specific sense. Thomas wasn’t talking about 2 or more of those types of beings; he was making a statement about one being: Jesus.

So if we take the elohim in heaven we have (1) The supreme "spirit being" and (2) lesser "spirit beings".

But in Greek there are two words to distinguish (1) from (2) [as well as from (3): the general category that covers (1) and (2) together] and the inspired word of God uses (1) in Thomas’ declaration about Jesus.

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 passages are you referring to that speaks of elohim between God and the angelic elohim?

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

Yes, in the same way sunlight originates from the sun, which isn’t a description of two different entities.

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

I meant it to include the historical cultural context (the language Jews and early Christians would have used to worship God), but not other verses like Rev 5:14.

Il sorry I do not understand the question

You said one could conclude the One on the throne is being worshiped if the One on the throne is shown to be the Almighty, because of the object in the sentence, not the words (praise, glory, honor, etc.). Surely the words have some role to play. If it’s just about the object being there, then this statement, “The Almighty God doesn’t exist” (or "the One seated on the throne doesn't exist" and other statements show us that that One seated is Almighty God), would be a statement of worship because the same object is there.

[JehovahsWitness]

...it would be better to translate that term into English as “spiritual beings” to cover all three senses.

Okay so what do you mean by a "spirit being" how would you define what that is?

So if we take the elohim in heaven we have (1) The supreme "spirit being" and (2) lesser "spirit beings".

But in Greek .... {snip}

I don't care I'm not talking about Greek

What passages are you referring to that speaks of elohim between God and the angelic elohim?

HEBREWS 1:4

So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

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

Yes, in the same way sunlight originates from the sun, which isn’t a description of two different entities.

Paul makes no mention of the sun, the word does not stem from the word "sun" and there is no comparison in the scripture to the sun or its light. So no Paul does not say "in the same way sunlight originates from the sun"

I meant it to include the historical cultural context (the language Jews and early Christians would have used to worship God), but not other verses ..

Okay so go ahead: prove from Rev 5:13 that the words directed at the lamb were worship, rather than respectful praise, from the historical and linguistic context without any reference to any other verses in the bible.

...Surely the words have some role to play.

Well naturally yes. Praise offered to the Almighty can (but not necessarily) be consided an expression of worship ; as is the case for recogntion of his power and position.

[The Tanager]

Okay so what do you mean by a "spirit being" how would you define what that is?

Something like: a supernatural, incorporeal being (although that doesn't exclude such a being having the ability to take on a natural body).

I don't care I'm not talking about Greek

Why not? We are discussing John 20:28 which was written in Greek.

What passages are you referring to that speaks of elohim between God and the angelic elohim?

HEBREWS 1:4

So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

This verse doesn’t say He is an elohim that is between God and the angels; it says He is superior to the angels.

Paul makes no mention of the sun, the word does not stem from the word "sun" and there is no comparison in the scripture to the sun or its light. Sio no Paul does not say "in the same way sunlight originates from the sun"

We are talking about the definitions by people like Conybeare of words that Paul used and what Paul meant by using those terms, not a definition of the term by Paul. Conybeare and others talk about the apaugasma being a radiance/light originating from a source, like sunlight originating from the sun. You are trying to say that something originating from a source denotes that the “something” is a distinct and separate thing from the “source”. That’s not true. Sunlight is not a distinct and separate thing from the sun. So, going on those definitions, one cannot conclude that, in using this term, Paul is talking about Jesus and God being two separate and distinct things.

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay so what do you mean by a "spirit being" how would you define what that is?

Something like: a supernatural, incorporeal being (although that doesn't exclude such a being having the ability to take on a natural body).

So that definition allows for "a spirit being" that is not an angel, correct? As long as it's (a) supernatural and (b)incorporeal it classifies, as elohim (spirit being) correct?

Elohim does not mean “gods” in Hebrew, it is a wider term (“spiritual beings” or something like that) ... That’s why the Jews were okay with calling angels and other humans “elohim” and weren’t concerned about breaking the first commandment in doing so.

This verse doesn’t say He is an elohim that is between God and the angels; it says He is superior to the angels.

Did I say "This verse says He is an elohim that is between God and the angels" or did I say ....

. [this] 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... .

Conybeare and others talk about the apaugasma being a radiance/light originating from a source, like sunlight originating from the sun.

Conybeare* (not Paul) make a comparison, but it seems clear he is comparing (not the substance) of the material but the existence of an originator.

* I can see none of the others linguists mention "The sun"

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

EMANATION

1.something which originates or issues from a source

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

• Conybeare: ... not 'brightness', but emanation, as of light from the sun.

• Brian Davidson: ... rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves" -

• Robertson: " ... effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold

[The Tanager]

So definition allows for a a spirit being that is not an angel, correct? As long as it's (a) supernatural and (b)incorporeal it classifies, as elohim (spirit being) correct?

How “spirit being” is generally defined is different from what sub-categories are placed under that category. The ancient Hebrews allowed the sub-categories of (1) God, (2) angels, and (3) false gods. They also allowed the term in sense (3) to apply to humans analogically.

Did I say "This verse says He is an elohim that is between God and the angels" or did I say ....

. [this] 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…

I don’t see the difference, but okay: this verse doesn’t say there is an elohim/spirit being “of higher rank than the angels but lower than the Supreme one”; it says Jesus is superior to the angels (the first bit) but not lower than God (the second bit).

Conybeare (not Paul) make a comparison, but it seems clear he is comparing (not the substance) of the material but the existence of an originator.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here? These people are reacting against those who argue there is the idea of ‘reflection’ here. The object (in this case Jesus) isn’t reflecting light from an original source (like a mirror would reflect rays from an original source) but is the light from that original source like light from the sun.

[JehovahsWitness]

So definition allows for a a spirit being that is not an angel, correct? As long as it's (a) supernatural and (b)incorporeal it classifies, as elohim (spirit being) correct?

How “spirit being” is generally defined...

I didn't ask how it is generally defined I asked YOU explain what you yourself had earlier proposed was a more accurate rendition covering the scope of Hebrew usage at tge time . Please note your statement below.

Elohim does not mean “gods” in Hebrew, it is a wider term (“spiritual beings” or something like that) ... That’s why the Jews were okay with calling angels and other humans “elohim” and weren’t concerned about breaking the first commandment in doing so.

...okay: this verse doesn’t say {snip}

Did I use the word "say" or did I use the word "indicate"?

. ...Indeed scripture indicates this is in fact the case... .

...The object (in this case Jesus) ...is the light from that original source ....

So does this light originate or does it not originate?

EMANATION

1.something which originates or issues from a source

• Conybeare: ... not 'brightness', but emanation, as of light from the sun.

• Brian Davidson: ... rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves" -

• Robertson: " ... effulgence (ray from an original light body) as the Greek fathers hold

[The Tanager]

I didn't ask how it is generally defined I asked YOU explain what you yourself had earlier proposed was a more accurate rendition covering the scope of Hebrew usage at tge time . Please note your statement below.

That sounds like the exact same thing to me; to cover the scope is to define the term generally. What do you mean by "covering the scope of Hebrew usage at the time"?

Did I use the word "say" or did I use the word "indicate"?

That denotes the same thing to me, but okay: this verse doesn’t indicate there is an elohim/spirit being “of higher rank than the angels but lower than the Supreme one”; it indicates Jesus is superior to the angels (the first bit) but not lower than God (the second bit).

So does this light originate or does it not originate?

The light originates, like sunlight originates.

[JehovahsWitness]

That sounds like the exact same thing to me; to cover the scope is to define the term generally. ...

Okay, so my question is: are you saying you no longer hold to the definition for a spirit being that you just provided? Yes or No?

Okay so what do you mean by a "spirit being" how would you define what that is?

Something like: a supernatural, incorporeal being (although that doesn't exclude such a being having the ability to take on a natural body).

HEBREWS 1:4

So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

...this verse doesn’t indicate there is an elohim/spirit being “of higher rank than the angels but lower than the Supreme one”

The words he became better and he "inherited" his name, indicate his superior position not only began at a certain point but was given or accorded to him. It logically could only be given to him by one that was superior to both the angels and himself.

The light originates, like sunlight originates.

Meaning?

[The Tanager]

Okay, so my question is: are you saying you no longer hold to the definition for a spirit being that you just provided? Yes or No?

No, I still hold to that. A good general definition of elohim that covers the various specific senses the Hebrews used for it is “a supernatural, incorporeal being”.

The words he became better and he "inherited" his name, indicate his superior position not only began at a certain point but was given or accorded to him. It logically could only be given to him by one that was superior to both the angels and himself.

Creating the world through Jesus (v. 2), I think, would require already being superior to the angels in some sense, so that means we have some context to consider when Paul then goes on to talk of Jesus becoming superior. He has become superior in name because of His work cleansing us from sin.

The light originates, like sunlight originates.

Meaning?

Meaning that yes, it originates, but not from a separate, completely distinct thing.

[JehovahsWitness]

Okay, so my question is: are you saying you no longer hold to the definition for a spirit being that you just provided? Yes or No?

No, I still hold to that. ...

Since say you "still hold to that" definition would you agree then that if something meets the two defining features in a definition , it could be classified that thing?

Creating the world through Jesus (v. 2), I think, would require already being superior to the angels in some sense, ...

No doubt about it, but he "became" better, which indicates there was a change which improved him. Further Paul said this Jesus became better by means of inheritance which it was something one receives. That Jesus was given his better name by his Father is confirmed in Eph 1:20 (compare Mat 28:19). An Almighty God cannot be promoted or given more authority by anyone, so we have good reason to conclude that Jesus is a spirit being superior to angels but inferior to the Almighty.