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!

[onewithhim]

To do obeisance, so different meaning now but same word where it meant worship in the other verses. So if we look up what Obeisance means: a gesture expressing respect, such as a bow or curtsy. (quoted online)

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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.

[Capbook]

To do obeisance, so different meaning now but same word where it meant worship in the other verses. So if we look up what Obeisance means: a gesture expressing respect, such as a bow or curtsy. (quoted online)

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

Exactly what does "The Word was god" mean? How can a word be god? Could the Word have been anything else other than god? Was god anything more than the Word?

I understand it to being associated with sound in relation to the consequence of sound.

In the beginning (of that which began) there was sound and the sound was called "I Am that which I Am" (or variants thereof) signifying that the source of the sound was aware of itself and what it created through the sound that it made.

In the beginning was sound and the sound was God.

Alternatively, in the beginning was that which caused the beginning to become, and that which caused the beginning is what we call "God".

Scientifically, it is accepted in some institutions (of the process of science,) that sound does have something to do with how things form - not in the sound itself (which is not detectable to the human ear re "sound") but in the observed result of vibrations which produce the forms. Vibrations are understood to accompany sound, so the assumption that sound is involved in the (ongoing) formation of the universe is a sound one (ftpun) enough to be thought of as a Justified Fact (JF)

"Who is God" appears to be (fundamentally) "that which is self aware and uses sound to create with".

[onewithhim]

To do obeisance, so different meaning now but same word where it meant worship in the other verses. So if we look up what Obeisance means: a gesture expressing respect, such as a bow or curtsy. (quoted online)

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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.

[Capbook]

To do obeisance, so different meaning now but same word where it meant worship in the other verses. So if we look up what Obeisance means: a gesture expressing respect, such as a bow or curtsy. (quoted online)

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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?

[onewithhim]

To do obeisance, so different meaning now but same word where it meant worship in the other verses. So if we look up what Obeisance means: a gesture expressing respect, such as a bow or curtsy. (quoted online)

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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.

[Capbook]

To do obeisance, so different meaning now but same word where it meant worship in the other verses. So if we look up what Obeisance means: a gesture expressing respect, such as a bow or curtsy. (quoted online)

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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.

What's the used of "and" there?
I believe your understanding is a mistake, the definition does not say different for God and different for Jesus.
It's only you that said it.

And two contrasting ideas in one sentence cannot use "and" a coordinating conjunction without a comma.
And without a comma coordination implies that the ideas are equal or nearly equal in importance;
https://www.hunter.cuny.edu/rwc/reposit ... as-new.pdf

[onewithhim]

To do obeisance, so different meaning now but same word where it meant worship in the other verses. So if we look up what Obeisance means: a gesture expressing respect, such as a bow or curtsy. (quoted online)

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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.

.

[Capbook]

So, since the same Greek word can be translated as worship or hommage/Obeisance , who gets to decide when to write in a translation the word "WORSHIP" and when to write in the word "hommage" or (one of its synonyms)? in the bible(s) YOU use,

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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

[onewithhim]

Rev 22:19, We may understand the word "worship" differently but I believe it's not good to change writings of the Bible to our likings.

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.