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?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus to God’s presence, the radiant glory,

The scripture says Jesus is the radiance of God's glory
It does not say Jesus is the endurance of his own glory

The cup that holds the the water cannot be equal to the fountain that produced it.

My point is that Joel says God will pour it out, not that God will give the authority to pour it out to someone else. And then when we expect God to pour it out on Jesus’ disciples, Jesus pours it out.

Since God is the ultimate source of holy spirit both scriptures can be true without Father and son being equal. If the owner of the fountain gives the fountain to his son (on condition that the sheep are watered) who watered the sheep?

If the disciples don’t own it as their own because they are lower in position than the one who gave it to them, {snip}

That is NOT the reason (and not what I said is the reason) , the disciples not getting the same authority as Jesus was not because they are lower than the giver, the disciples don't get the same authority as Jesus because they did not die for mankind.

If a Father gives his older son a car because he graduated with double honours from college, that doesn't mean he has to also give a car to his youngest for mowing the lawn: Nobody can get what Jesus got because nobody can do what Jesus did!

.... My original challenge was about believing in different levels of actual Gods. Jesus’s early Jewish disciples did not hold such a belief.

Nonsense, the Hebrew bible speaks of many gods, indeed the first of the ten commandement was not to worship and of them (Exodus 20:3).

PSALM 86:8

There is none like you among the gods, O Jehovah, There are no works like yours.

So you believe that at the moment he was dying, Jesus was not at the time calling to his God but simply remembering that someone else did?

I think he was encouraging the disciples and family that were watching him die and wondering why God was doing this.

Why WHOSE God was doing this?

JOHN 20:17

.... 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God

Sure, and "first and last" is not one of them

What evidence do you have of that? It can’t be the verses under question because that would just be begging the question.

I have the same evidence as you have.

It’s not irrelevant.

It is irrelevant. You are taking two different titles and saying they refer to the same individual because if some vague writing style and a nebulous assumption. Not a convincing argument.

It doesn’t directly state “and they worshiped the One seated on the throne” either {snip}

By saying "either" you admit that the scripture does not directly state that the lamb was worshipped thus it is an assumption on your part.

we are simply doing hermeneutics.

Fine I'm happy with that; you believe the known liars and enemies of the truth were right in their interpretation that someone claiming to be the SON is equal to the FATHER. I think their interpretation was bogus, since in no culture does the word son imply equality of age or authority with one's Father.

[The Tanager]

The scripture says Jesus is the radiance of God's glory
It does not say Jesus is the endurance of his own glory

The cup that holds the the water cannot be equal to the fountain that produced it.

I agree it doesn’t say Jesus is the radiance of his own glory. A cup holding water isn’t the same kind of analogy as the (radiant) light of Jehovah’s glory, though. “Radiance” isn’t something that contains glory; it is the

Since God is the ultimate source of holy spirit both scriptures can be true without Father and son being equal. If the owner of the fountain gives the fountain to his son (on condition that the sheep are watered) who watered the sheep?

The son.

That is NOT the reason (and not what I said is the reason) , the disciples not getting the same authority as Jesus was not because they are lower than the giver, the disciples don't get the same authority as Jesus because they did not die for mankind.

Jesus was given the authority to forgive sins before dying for mankind, wasn’t he?

Nonsense, the Hebrew bible speaks of many gods, indeed the first of the ten commandement was not to worship and of them (Exodus 20:3).

It speaks of God and many false gods that are really just made of wood or stone. You don’t worship them because they aren’t an actual God. Those false gods are nothing like Jehovah, the true God.

Why WHOSE God was doing this?

Their God.

I have the same evidence as you have.

Your evidence that “first and last” can be applied to more than just Jehovah is the same evidence I have for why it isn’t something that would be applied to more than just Jehovah? My reasoning is that there is a difference between using human titles like father, lord, king to describe God and giving him a name like “First and Last,” or the “I Am” or ‘Ancient of Days”, etc. How does that reasoning lead to your belief that those can be applied to beings other than God?

It is irrelevant. You are taking two different titles and saying they refer to the same individual because if some vague writing style and a nebulous assumption. Not a convincing argument.

No, I’m taking a description of Jesus in the book of revelation that is clearly meant to be a fulfillment of Daniel’s vision and when you get to the point in that where Daniel was talking about God, the author of revelation puts Jesus. That’s not a vague writing style and nebulous assumption.

By saying "either" you admit that the scripture does not directly state that the lamb was worshipped thus it is an assumption on your part; not actually confirmed in scripture.

No, I’m admitting the words “they worshiped the Lamb” are not written like that. But it still clearly shows worship of the Lamb. “and to the Lamb” be praise, honor, glory, and ruling power forever and ever.

Fine I'm happy with that; you believe the known liars and enemies of the truth were right in their interpretation that someone claiming to be the SON is equal to the FATHER. I think their interpretation was bogus, since in no culture does the word son imply equality of age or authority with one's Father.

No, I’m not saying Jesus was claiming to be God because they thought He was; I’m claiming that Jesus was claiming to be God because of His response (and he doesn’t lie and is not an enemy of the truth) to their accusation.

[JehovahsWitness]

I agree it doesn’t say Jesus is the radiance of his own glory.

So Jesus glory must be from another source. The source being superior to that which is not the source.

Jesus was given the authority to forgive sins before dying for mankind, wasn’t he?

Did God not know Jesus would die faithful?

...Those false gods are nothing like Jehovah, the true God.

Exactly, the True god is superior in every way. And the Jews knew of both catagorizes or Gods.

Why WHOSE God was doing this?

Their God

And ...? What did Jesus say (in red) below?

JOHN 20:17

.... 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God

I have the same evidence as you have.

Your evidence ... is the same evidence I have for why it isn’t something that would be applied to more than just Jehovah

Yes , since we have the same evidence , if mine is circular so is yours.

I’m taking a description of Jesus in the book of revelation that is clearly meant to be a fulfillment of Daniel’s vision and when you get to the point in that where Daniel was talking about God, the author of revelation puts Jesus.

That is your opinion , I see no evidence to support that conclusion.

...I’m admitting the words “they worshiped the Lamb” are not written like that.

The words “they worshiped the Lamb” are not in there at all. Period.

....I’m claiming that Jesus was claiming to be God because of His response...

Unfortunately for you however he didn't respond with the words "I am God" he responded by saying "I said I'm God's SON"

[The Tanager]

So Jesus glory must be from another source. The source being superior to that which is not the source.

The glory in the exodus isn’t an additional thing that is sourced in God; it is God’s presence. That’s the imagery the writer of Hebrews is drawing on. Jesus is compared to being that glory.

Did God not know Jesus would die faithful?

Then you should have said that Jesus was given the authority to forgive sins was because God knew Jesus would eventually die for mankind; I was going off of what you answered. I still don’t think it is a good reason to distinguish between why Jesus simply forgives sin instead of doing it in his superior’s name.

Exactly, the True god is superior in every way. And the Jews knew of both catagorizes or Gods.

Okay, now put together all of what you have said. There are two categories of Gods that the disciples know of: the true one and false gods. Thomas isn’t calling Jesus the true God. That leaves a false god. Yet you don't follow the logic that you just tried to use to critique what I've been saying. You use it when it supports your view and reject it when it doesn't. That's not a good hermeneutic.

And ...? What did Jesus say (in red) below?

JOHN 20:17

.... 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God

Yes, he says that. As fully human it makes perfect sense for Jesus to call the Father His God.

Yes , since we have the same evidence , if mine is circular so is yours.

Did you read what my evidence was? How the titles that are shared are common roles for humans (father, lord, king), while the ones that aren’t shared are specific? That's not circular reasoning. And I don't see how you are using that distinction to argue that the specific ones should be shared as well.

That is your opinion , I see no evidence to support that conclusion.

You saw the evidence because you’ve responded to it. Do you mean you think it is unsound reasoning?

The words “they worshiped the Lamb” are not in there at all. Period.

Unfortunately for you however he didn't respond with the words "I am God" he responded by saying "I said I'm God's SON"

The words “God is not a trinity” isn’t there either. Period? No. Because you believe the concept that God is not a trinity is all over the New Testament. So, this line of reasoning (it has to directly say what is being claimed) isn’t sound in the slightest by your own thoughts.

[JehovahsWitness]

The glory in the exodus isn’t an additional thing that is sourced in God; it is God’s presence.

Whatever you call it, it wasn't Jesus' it was God's.

still don’t think it is a good reason to distinguish between why Jesus simply forgives sin instead of doing it in his superior’s name.

Take that up with him.

Exactly, the True god is superior in every way. And the Jews knew of both catagorizes or Gods.

Okay, now put together all of what you have said. There are two categories of Gods that the disciples know of: the true one and false gods. ..

I did not say "There are two categories of Gods ...the true one and false gods" I said,"True god is superior in every way. And the Jews knew of both catagorizes [of] Gods "; ergo Category #1: The true God (superior) Category #2: every other god (inferior to catagory #1)

he says that. As fully human it makes perfect sense for Jesus to call the Father His God.

1. There is no scripture in the bible that calls Jesus "fully god". 2. Jesus calls the Father "his God" as the risen Christ 3. We must take him at his word ie. The Father is his God.

Did you read what my evidence was? How the titles that are shared are common roles for humans (father, lord, king), while the ones that aren’t shared are specific?

If your evidence is other passages of scripture (thus not cicular), then so is mine. We have just come to different conclusions.

That is your opinion , I see no evidence to support that conclusion.

You saw the evidence because you’ve responded to it. Do you mean you think it is unsound reasoning?

Yes. unsound, unconvincing, scripturally illogical.

The words “God is not a trinity” isn’t there either.

That is a factually correct statement. As is Jesus said the fact that Jesus said "... I said I am God's Son"



JW

[The Tanager]

The glory in the exodus isn’t an additional thing that is sourced in God; it is God’s presence.

Whatever you call it, it wasn't Jesus' it was God's.)

Yes, and that thing that is God’s presence, the writer of Hebrews directly says Jesus is.

still don’t think it is a good reason to distinguish between why Jesus simply forgives sin instead of doing it in his superior’s name.

Take that up with him.

No, I’m taking it up with you because it is your interpretation of what God meant. God didn’t say (i.e., there is no verse that directly says) something like “I, the Lord, am giving Jesus the authority to forgive sins because Jesus will die for the faithful.” These books weren’t written to settle our exact debate. There isn’t a verse directly addressing our question in our exact terms, so we both have interpretations that it is our burden to support.

I did not say "There are two categories of Gods ...the true one and false gods" I said,"True god is superior in every way. And the Jews knew of both catagorizes [of] Gods "; ergo Category #1: The true God (superior) Category #2: every other god (inferior to catagory #1)

But to the Jews these are “inferior” gods precisely because they are false ones. You are using “inferior” in a broader way than they did.

Did you read what my evidence was? How the titles that are shared are common roles for humans (father, lord, king), while the ones that aren’t shared are specific?

If your evidence is other passages of scripture (thus not cicular), then so is mine. We have just come to different conclusions.

I didn’t mention any passages of scripture as my evidence. I showed how the titles that are shared are common roles for humans, while the specific names/titles are ones that don’t have common roles for humans. There aren’t “ancients of days” and “firsts and lasts” (and others we haven’t talked about) in human societies. Humans who respect God aren't going to take titles that belong to Him alone. Your defense seems to be something like "since they take father, lord, they can take any name."

The words “God is not a trinity” isn’t there either.

That is a factually correct statement. As is Jesus said the fact that Jesus said "... I said I am God's Son"

Okay, but that fact is irrelevant to analyzing a specific reasoning you used to support your claim about what Jesus saying that means. You said Rev 5:13 doesn’t say the exact phrase “they worshiped the Lamb,” so that means “they worshiped the Lamb” must be untrue. If you were consistent, then you would also have to say that about “God is not a trinity” because no verse says that exact phrase. You used a very bad principle to avoid the clear text in Rev 5:13 that the Lamb is being worshiped, but ignore that principle when it comes to a belief you hold.

[Revelations won]

To all JW's

The problem you all have is that you do not understand the God the Fathere did not create this heaven and this earth. Yes it was the Father's plan of course. The 4th was created by his first begotten Son under his direction.

His first begotten spirit son is Jesus Christ who was the creator of this earth and all that is therein. Jesus Christ is also the only one of his spirit sons who was also begotten by God the Father in the flesh.


Since you deny that Jesus the Christ , the very Messiah is Immanuel or God with us and form your own man determined belief that Jehovah is somehow God the Father, which is determined by your own deductive reasoning

and not by revelation of the Holy Ghost, then your conclusions are in error.


It is also very clear that you deny the witness of the Holy Ghost who can reveal all thing to us. So by your own disbelief you are left to your own devises to form your worship of a "God without "Flesh and Bone".

[Revelations won]

To all JW's

The problem you all have is that you do not understand the God the Fathere did not create this heaven and this earth. Yes it was the Father's plan of course. The 4th was created by his first begotten Son under his direction.

His first begotten spirit son is Jesus Christ who was the creator of this earth and all that is therein. Jesus Christ is also the only one of his spirit sons who was also begotten by God the Father in the flesh.


Since you deny that Jesus the Christ , the very Messiah is Immanuel or God with us and form your own man determined belief that Jehovah is somehow God the Father, which is determined by your own deductive reasoning

and not by revelation of the Holy Ghost, then your conclusions are in error.


It is also very clear that you deny the witness of the Holy Ghost who can reveal all thing to us. So by your own disbelief you are left to your own devices to form your worship of a "God without "Flesh and Bone”.

[JehovahsWitness]

Whatever you call it, it wasn't Jesus' it was God's.)

Yes...

By saying "Yes" you admit it wasnt Jesus - so whatever it is/ whatever we interpret it to be, it did not originate with Jesus (if did, it would be his(Jesus') glory) The originator thus remains superior to the he who is not the originator. And again you admit it wasnt Jesus so it could not have originate with him.

still don’t think it is a good reason to distinguish between why Jesus simply forgives sin instead of doing it in his superior’s name.

Take that up with him.

No, I’m taking it up with you because it is your interpretation of what God meant.

I'm not here to debate you feelings; if you have a valid counterargument present it : but "don’t think it is a good reason " isnt a counterargument its how you feel about the argument which is irrelevant.

But to the Jews these are “inferior” gods precisely because they are false ones. You are using “inferior” in a broader way than they did.

Prove that is the case

I didn’t mention any passages of scripture as my evidence.

If your evidence is non-scripural, I reject it.

The words “God is not a trinity” isn’t there either.

That is a factually correct statement. As is Jesus said the fact that Jesus said "... I said I am God's Son"

Okay, but that fact is irrelevant to analyzing a specific reasoning you used to support your claim about what Jesus saying that means.

How can Jesus explicit statement about having a God be irrelevant in a discussion about what he meant when he explained his identity within the context of his position in relation to The Father?

...You said Rev 5:13 doesn’t say the exact phrase “they worshiped the Lamb,” so that means “they worshiped the Lamb” must be untrue.

I said no such thing.

[JehovahsWitness]

Duplicate. Sorry.