Just WHO is God?

[MadJW]

In world religion there all kinds of Gods.
I, personally, have examined most of them and found them lacking.
Then I come to 'Christian' religion, and find that the majority of them don't know God at ALL!
I think one can have a serious debate on THIS site!

The Bible= Jehovah (Name removed by most 'Christian' churches)
Churchianity= there's Three!

[Capbook]

Just HOW has anyone "changed the writings of the Bible"? There has merely been a discussion of the meaning of "worship." If men can be "worshipped," like people in high places, judges, kings, etc., why wouldn't it be fair to say that Jesus is "worshipped"? What does "worship" mean when being applied to men in superior positions? Are they being worshipped as God Almighty? No! Neither is Jesus to be worshipped as God Almighty.

And why Thayer's define "worship" in letter b definition as to God and the ascended Christ. It used "and" meaning for both or for the two that same kind of "worship" is rendered.

Yes, that is Thayer's definition;
NT:4352 proskuneoo, proskunoo;
a. of homage shown to men of superior rank: absolutely, Matt 20:20
b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings, and to demons: John 4:20
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database)

You are proving my point yourself. What is worship? As you say---"homage shown to men of superior rank." So to "worship" men is to show them homage, as what we've been saying all along. This carries over to Jesus Christ. He is in heaven with his Father yet still is not God himself. Therefore we show him homage that goes to the persons that are heavenly beings---as you posted---but not as God Almighty. To show homage to God does not mean that He and Christ are equal. Homage can be shown to both, but the Father is also superior to Christ. Homage as God is shown to just one, the Father. The same kind of "worship" of God and Son is not shown here.

Do this lexicon definition, "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" say different kind of homage for God and different kind of homage for Christ?
Or it's just you who said it.

It is throughout the Bible that Jehovah, the Father, is the Most High and the ONLY Most High. There is no other name that is considered the Most High. So we render the worship to Him that makes clear that He is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

The ascended Christ is still subject to the Father. I Corinthians 11:3 says that "the head of the Christ is God." He is still in subjection to the Father, God.

So, this lexicon definition is wrong to you? "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ"
Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?

They both get homage. But as it has been said to you ad nauseum, there are different kinds of homage. God the Father gets homage as the Most High, the only true God. Jesus gets homage as an important, beloved, powerful individual, but not God.

So your lexicon's definition isn't wrong. Your understanding of it is.

.

Yes, lexicon is correct and the usage of "and" is correct, you just don't understand its grammatical usage.
The lexicon definition "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" is not an independent clause of the sentence that fits your explanation. Without a comma before "and" make the same homage for God and Jesus.
Masterclass.com will teach you.

Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?
Coordinating conjunctions often come after a comma that follows the first independent clause of a compound sentence.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/co ... -explained

Your quibbling over conjunctions is meaningless. The Bible clearly shows who the one true God is, and in Jesus' own words.

1) "...YOU, the only true God." (Jesus praying to his Father.) John 17:3.
2) "...I am ascending to my God and your God." (Jesus speaking to Mary.) John 20:17.
3) "The one that conquers---I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and...I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, ...which descends out of heaven from my God." Revelation 3:12.
4) "I said that I am God's Son," not God. John 10:36.

1. That verse did not say that Jesus is not God. And how could a Christian experience eternal life in John 17:3?
2. And Jesus is also God in essence, Heb 1:8,9 Col 2:9
3. And also Jesus is God in nature, in John 1:1, Rev 1:17,18.
4. Yes, Son of man, Jesus is man. Son of God, Jesus is God. The Pharisees knows better about that.

[onewithhim]

And why Thayer's define "worship" in letter b definition as to God and the ascended Christ. It used "and" meaning for both or for the two that same kind of "worship" is rendered.

Yes, that is Thayer's definition;
NT:4352 proskuneoo, proskunoo;
a. of homage shown to men of superior rank: absolutely, Matt 20:20
b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings, and to demons: John 4:20
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database)

You are proving my point yourself. What is worship? As you say---"homage shown to men of superior rank." So to "worship" men is to show them homage, as what we've been saying all along. This carries over to Jesus Christ. He is in heaven with his Father yet still is not God himself. Therefore we show him homage that goes to the persons that are heavenly beings---as you posted---but not as God Almighty. To show homage to God does not mean that He and Christ are equal. Homage can be shown to both, but the Father is also superior to Christ. Homage as God is shown to just one, the Father. The same kind of "worship" of God and Son is not shown here.

Do this lexicon definition, "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" say different kind of homage for God and different kind of homage for Christ?
Or it's just you who said it.

It is throughout the Bible that Jehovah, the Father, is the Most High and the ONLY Most High. There is no other name that is considered the Most High. So we render the worship to Him that makes clear that He is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

The ascended Christ is still subject to the Father. I Corinthians 11:3 says that "the head of the Christ is God." He is still in subjection to the Father, God.

So, this lexicon definition is wrong to you? "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ"
Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?

They both get homage. But as it has been said to you ad nauseum, there are different kinds of homage. God the Father gets homage as the Most High, the only true God. Jesus gets homage as an important, beloved, powerful individual, but not God.

So your lexicon's definition isn't wrong. Your understanding of it is.

.

Yes, lexicon is correct and the usage of "and" is correct, you just don't understand its grammatical usage.
The lexicon definition "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" is not an independent clause of the sentence that fits your explanation. Without a comma before "and" make the same homage for God and Jesus.
Masterclass.com will teach you.

Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?
Coordinating conjunctions often come after a comma that follows the first independent clause of a compound sentence.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/co ... -explained

Your quibbling over conjunctions is meaningless. The Bible clearly shows who the one true God is, and in Jesus' own words.

1) "...YOU, the only true God." (Jesus praying to his Father.) John 17:3.
2) "...I am ascending to my God and your God." (Jesus speaking to Mary.) John 20:17.
3) "The one that conquers---I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and...I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, ...which descends out of heaven from my God." Revelation 3:12.
4) "I said that I am God's Son," not God. John 10:36.

1. That verse did not say that Jesus is not God. And how could a Christian experience eternal life in John 17:3?
2. And Jesus is also God in essence, Heb 1:8,9 Col 2:9
3. And also Jesus is God in nature, in John 1:1, Rev 1:17,18.
4. Yes, Son of man, Jesus is man. Son of God, Jesus is God. The Pharisees knows better about that.

The Pharisees said the Jesus "had a demon," so why do you think they had contributed anything to the truth? At the end of the day, they stated what they thought that Jesus claimed to be: "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am Gods Son.'" (Matthew 27:43)

[Capbook]

You are proving my point yourself. What is worship? As you say---"homage shown to men of superior rank." So to "worship" men is to show them homage, as what we've been saying all along. This carries over to Jesus Christ. He is in heaven with his Father yet still is not God himself. Therefore we show him homage that goes to the persons that are heavenly beings---as you posted---but not as God Almighty. To show homage to God does not mean that He and Christ are equal. Homage can be shown to both, but the Father is also superior to Christ. Homage as God is shown to just one, the Father. The same kind of "worship" of God and Son is not shown here.

Do this lexicon definition, "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" say different kind of homage for God and different kind of homage for Christ?
Or it's just you who said it.

It is throughout the Bible that Jehovah, the Father, is the Most High and the ONLY Most High. There is no other name that is considered the Most High. So we render the worship to Him that makes clear that He is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

The ascended Christ is still subject to the Father. I Corinthians 11:3 says that "the head of the Christ is God." He is still in subjection to the Father, God.

So, this lexicon definition is wrong to you? "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ"
Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?

They both get homage. But as it has been said to you ad nauseum, there are different kinds of homage. God the Father gets homage as the Most High, the only true God. Jesus gets homage as an important, beloved, powerful individual, but not God.

So your lexicon's definition isn't wrong. Your understanding of it is.

.

Yes, lexicon is correct and the usage of "and" is correct, you just don't understand its grammatical usage.
The lexicon definition "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" is not an independent clause of the sentence that fits your explanation. Without a comma before "and" make the same homage for God and Jesus.
Masterclass.com will teach you.

Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?
Coordinating conjunctions often come after a comma that follows the first independent clause of a compound sentence.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/co ... -explained

Your quibbling over conjunctions is meaningless. The Bible clearly shows who the one true God is, and in Jesus' own words.

1) "...YOU, the only true God." (Jesus praying to his Father.) John 17:3.
2) "...I am ascending to my God and your God." (Jesus speaking to Mary.) John 20:17.
3) "The one that conquers---I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and...I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, ...which descends out of heaven from my God." Revelation 3:12.
4) "I said that I am God's Son," not God. John 10:36.

1. That verse did not say that Jesus is not God. And how could a Christian experience eternal life in John 17:3?
2. And Jesus is also God in essence, Heb 1:8,9 Col 2:9
3. And also Jesus is God in nature, in John 1:1, Rev 1:17,18.
4. Yes, Son of man, Jesus is man. Son of God, Jesus is God. The Pharisees knows better about that.

The Pharisees said the Jesus "had a demon," so why do you think they had contributed anything to the truth? At the end of the day, they stated what they thought that Jesus claimed to be: "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am Gods Son.'" (Matthew 27:43)

I also numbered my response but you did not addressed especially in the no. 1 question.
My point is that the Pharisees have better understanding John 10:36.
May I point their logic;
1. Would you accept that dogs give birth (whelped) puppies (dog in nature)? Yes or no?
2. Would you accept that cats give birth (queening) kittens (cat in nature? Yes or no?

[onewithhim]

Do this lexicon definition, "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" say different kind of homage for God and different kind of homage for Christ?
Or it's just you who said it.

It is throughout the Bible that Jehovah, the Father, is the Most High and the ONLY Most High. There is no other name that is considered the Most High. So we render the worship to Him that makes clear that He is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

The ascended Christ is still subject to the Father. I Corinthians 11:3 says that "the head of the Christ is God." He is still in subjection to the Father, God.

So, this lexicon definition is wrong to you? "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ"
Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?

They both get homage. But as it has been said to you ad nauseum, there are different kinds of homage. God the Father gets homage as the Most High, the only true God. Jesus gets homage as an important, beloved, powerful individual, but not God.

So your lexicon's definition isn't wrong. Your understanding of it is.

.

Yes, lexicon is correct and the usage of "and" is correct, you just don't understand its grammatical usage.
The lexicon definition "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" is not an independent clause of the sentence that fits your explanation. Without a comma before "and" make the same homage for God and Jesus.
Masterclass.com will teach you.

Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?
Coordinating conjunctions often come after a comma that follows the first independent clause of a compound sentence.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/co ... -explained

Your quibbling over conjunctions is meaningless. The Bible clearly shows who the one true God is, and in Jesus' own words.

1) "...YOU, the only true God." (Jesus praying to his Father.) John 17:3.
2) "...I am ascending to my God and your God." (Jesus speaking to Mary.) John 20:17.
3) "The one that conquers---I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and...I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, ...which descends out of heaven from my God." Revelation 3:12.
4) "I said that I am God's Son," not God. John 10:36.

1. That verse did not say that Jesus is not God. And how could a Christian experience eternal life in John 17:3?
2. And Jesus is also God in essence, Heb 1:8,9 Col 2:9
3. And also Jesus is God in nature, in John 1:1, Rev 1:17,18.
4. Yes, Son of man, Jesus is man. Son of God, Jesus is God. The Pharisees knows better about that.

The Pharisees said the Jesus "had a demon," so why do you think they had contributed anything to the truth? At the end of the day, they stated what they thought that Jesus claimed to be: "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am Gods Son.'" (Matthew 27:43)

I also numbered my response but you did not addressed especially in the no. 1 question.
My point is that the Pharisees have better understanding John 10:36.
May I point their logic;
1. Would you accept that dogs give birth (whelped) puppies (dog in nature)? Yes or no?
2. Would you accept that cats give birth (queening) kittens (cat in nature? Yes or no?

The Pharisees have better understanding than the Bible?? Did you get the point that they killed Jesus? How was their understanding better than what Jesus said at John 10:36?

Yes dogs and cats give birth to dogs and cats. They are all physical. Jehovah, the Father, gave birth to Jesus Christ and both of their natures are spirit. There isn't one dog or cat that is above the rest, but Jehovah is above all the things that He created. You can't equate Jehovah with a dog.

[Capbook]

It is throughout the Bible that Jehovah, the Father, is the Most High and the ONLY Most High. There is no other name that is considered the Most High. So we render the worship to Him that makes clear that He is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

The ascended Christ is still subject to the Father. I Corinthians 11:3 says that "the head of the Christ is God." He is still in subjection to the Father, God.

So, this lexicon definition is wrong to you? "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ"
Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?

They both get homage. But as it has been said to you ad nauseum, there are different kinds of homage. God the Father gets homage as the Most High, the only true God. Jesus gets homage as an important, beloved, powerful individual, but not God.

So your lexicon's definition isn't wrong. Your understanding of it is.

.

Yes, lexicon is correct and the usage of "and" is correct, you just don't understand its grammatical usage.
The lexicon definition "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" is not an independent clause of the sentence that fits your explanation. Without a comma before "and" make the same homage for God and Jesus.
Masterclass.com will teach you.

Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?
Coordinating conjunctions often come after a comma that follows the first independent clause of a compound sentence.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/co ... -explained

Your quibbling over conjunctions is meaningless. The Bible clearly shows who the one true God is, and in Jesus' own words.

1) "...YOU, the only true God." (Jesus praying to his Father.) John 17:3.
2) "...I am ascending to my God and your God." (Jesus speaking to Mary.) John 20:17.
3) "The one that conquers---I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and...I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, ...which descends out of heaven from my God." Revelation 3:12.
4) "I said that I am God's Son," not God. John 10:36.

1. That verse did not say that Jesus is not God. And how could a Christian experience eternal life in John 17:3?
2. And Jesus is also God in essence, Heb 1:8,9 Col 2:9
3. And also Jesus is God in nature, in John 1:1, Rev 1:17,18.
4. Yes, Son of man, Jesus is man. Son of God, Jesus is God. The Pharisees knows better about that.

The Pharisees said the Jesus "had a demon," so why do you think they had contributed anything to the truth? At the end of the day, they stated what they thought that Jesus claimed to be: "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am Gods Son.'" (Matthew 27:43)

I also numbered my response but you did not addressed especially in the no. 1 question.
My point is that the Pharisees have better understanding John 10:36.
May I point their logic;
1. Would you accept that dogs give birth (whelped) puppies (dog in nature)? Yes or no?
2. Would you accept that cats give birth (queening) kittens (cat in nature? Yes or no?

The Pharisees have better understanding than the Bible?? Did you get the point that they killed Jesus? How was their understanding better than what Jesus said at John 10:36?

Yes dogs and cats give birth to dogs and cats. They are all physical. Jehovah, the Father, gave birth to Jesus Christ and both of their natures are spirit. There isn't one dog or cat that is above the rest, but Jehovah is above all the things that He created. You can't equate Jehovah with a dog.

My point is that Pharisees had better understanding of John 10:36.
As dogs gives birth to dogs, and cats gives give birth to cats.
Then Jesus as "Son of man" as man because His mother Mary is human.
What about Jesus as "Son of God"? if you apply the same logic above, I believe the Pharisees had better understanding of accusing Jesus as "God the Son".

[onewithhim]

So, this lexicon definition is wrong to you? "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ"
Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?

They both get homage. But as it has been said to you ad nauseum, there are different kinds of homage. God the Father gets homage as the Most High, the only true God. Jesus gets homage as an important, beloved, powerful individual, but not God.

So your lexicon's definition isn't wrong. Your understanding of it is.

.

Yes, lexicon is correct and the usage of "and" is correct, you just don't understand its grammatical usage.
The lexicon definition "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" is not an independent clause of the sentence that fits your explanation. Without a comma before "and" make the same homage for God and Jesus.
Masterclass.com will teach you.

Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?
Coordinating conjunctions often come after a comma that follows the first independent clause of a compound sentence.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/co ... -explained

Your quibbling over conjunctions is meaningless. The Bible clearly shows who the one true God is, and in Jesus' own words.

1) "...YOU, the only true God." (Jesus praying to his Father.) John 17:3.
2) "...I am ascending to my God and your God." (Jesus speaking to Mary.) John 20:17.
3) "The one that conquers---I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and...I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, ...which descends out of heaven from my God." Revelation 3:12.
4) "I said that I am God's Son," not God. John 10:36.

1. That verse did not say that Jesus is not God. And how could a Christian experience eternal life in John 17:3?
2. And Jesus is also God in essence, Heb 1:8,9 Col 2:9
3. And also Jesus is God in nature, in John 1:1, Rev 1:17,18.
4. Yes, Son of man, Jesus is man. Son of God, Jesus is God. The Pharisees knows better about that.

The Pharisees said the Jesus "had a demon," so why do you think they had contributed anything to the truth? At the end of the day, they stated what they thought that Jesus claimed to be: "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am Gods Son.'" (Matthew 27:43)

I also numbered my response but you did not addressed especially in the no. 1 question.
My point is that the Pharisees have better understanding John 10:36.
May I point their logic;
1. Would you accept that dogs give birth (whelped) puppies (dog in nature)? Yes or no?
2. Would you accept that cats give birth (queening) kittens (cat in nature? Yes or no?

The Pharisees have better understanding than the Bible?? Did you get the point that they killed Jesus? How was their understanding better than what Jesus said at John 10:36?

Yes dogs and cats give birth to dogs and cats. They are all physical. Jehovah, the Father, gave birth to Jesus Christ and both of their natures are spirit. There isn't one dog or cat that is above the rest, but Jehovah is above all the things that He created. You can't equate Jehovah with a dog.

My point is that Pharisees had better understanding of John 10:36.
As dogs gives birth to dogs, and cats gives give birth to cats.
Then Jesus as "Son of man" as man because His mother Mary is human.
What about Jesus as "Son of God"? if you apply the same logic above, I believe the Pharisees had better understanding of accusing Jesus as "God the Son".

You keep saying that the evil Pharisees "had better understanding." Did they better understand that Jesus had a demon? (John 8:48,52)

[Capbook]

They both get homage. But as it has been said to you ad nauseum, there are different kinds of homage. God the Father gets homage as the Most High, the only true God. Jesus gets homage as an important, beloved, powerful individual, but not God.

So your lexicon's definition isn't wrong. Your understanding of it is.

.

Yes, lexicon is correct and the usage of "and" is correct, you just don't understand its grammatical usage.
The lexicon definition "of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ" is not an independent clause of the sentence that fits your explanation. Without a comma before "and" make the same homage for God and Jesus.
Masterclass.com will teach you.

Is "and' not a coordinating conjunction to you?
Coordinating conjunctions often come after a comma that follows the first independent clause of a compound sentence.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/co ... -explained

Your quibbling over conjunctions is meaningless. The Bible clearly shows who the one true God is, and in Jesus' own words.

1) "...YOU, the only true God." (Jesus praying to his Father.) John 17:3.
2) "...I am ascending to my God and your God." (Jesus speaking to Mary.) John 20:17.
3) "The one that conquers---I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and...I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, ...which descends out of heaven from my God." Revelation 3:12.
4) "I said that I am God's Son," not God. John 10:36.

1. That verse did not say that Jesus is not God. And how could a Christian experience eternal life in John 17:3?
2. And Jesus is also God in essence, Heb 1:8,9 Col 2:9
3. And also Jesus is God in nature, in John 1:1, Rev 1:17,18.
4. Yes, Son of man, Jesus is man. Son of God, Jesus is God. The Pharisees knows better about that.

The Pharisees said the Jesus "had a demon," so why do you think they had contributed anything to the truth? At the end of the day, they stated what they thought that Jesus claimed to be: "He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, 'I am Gods Son.'" (Matthew 27:43)

I also numbered my response but you did not addressed especially in the no. 1 question.
My point is that the Pharisees have better understanding John 10:36.
May I point their logic;
1. Would you accept that dogs give birth (whelped) puppies (dog in nature)? Yes or no?
2. Would you accept that cats give birth (queening) kittens (cat in nature? Yes or no?

The Pharisees have better understanding than the Bible?? Did you get the point that they killed Jesus? How was their understanding better than what Jesus said at John 10:36?

Yes dogs and cats give birth to dogs and cats. They are all physical. Jehovah, the Father, gave birth to Jesus Christ and both of their natures are spirit. There isn't one dog or cat that is above the rest, but Jehovah is above all the things that He created. You can't equate Jehovah with a dog.

My point is that Pharisees had better understanding of John 10:36.
As dogs gives birth to dogs, and cats gives give birth to cats.
Then Jesus as "Son of man" as man because His mother Mary is human.
What about Jesus as "Son of God"? if you apply the same logic above, I believe the Pharisees had better understanding of accusing Jesus as "God the Son".

You keep saying that the evil Pharisees "had better understanding." Did they better understand that Jesus had a demon? (John 8:48,52)

I colored blue your reply above and I believe that's also the Pharisees' understanding of John 10:36.
I just confined my argument to John 10:36 and no other verses.

[onewithhim]

In world religion there all kinds of Gods.
I, personally, have examined most of them and found them lacking.
Then I come to 'Christian' religion, and find that the majority of them don't know God at ALL!
I think one can have a serious debate on THIS site!

The Bible= Jehovah (Name removed by most 'Christian' churches)
Churchianity= there's Three!

You make an excellent argument for God being one and not three.

"Listen O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force." (Deuteronomy 6:4,5)

[Capbook]

In world religion there all kinds of Gods.
I, personally, have examined most of them and found them lacking.
Then I come to 'Christian' religion, and find that the majority of them don't know God at ALL!
I think one can have a serious debate on THIS site!

The Bible= Jehovah (Name removed by most 'Christian' churches)
Churchianity= there's Three!

You make an excellent argument for God being one and not three.

"Listen O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. And you must love Jehovah your God God with all your heart and all your soul and all your vital force." (Deuteronomy 6:4,5)

If no one had seen God, then who was seen by Jacob in Gen 32:30?
And in original Greek of John 1:1 said, "and God was the word". Is the original Greek wrong?

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.