I must be missing something. The sum total Jewish understanding of the concept of worship is physically bending over. Is that correct?
That's correct.
That was no the claim. I said that bowing down is the most minimalistic expression of worship I think possible and therefor no possibility that whatever did concerning Christ could be less significant. I am basically saying that no temperature can claim to be lower than -273K for another body as an allegory.
Minimalistic or not, that's all there is to it. Attaching some sort of level of reverence as if there's a degree reserved for God and Jesus and the Angels is a whole another story that has nothing to do with the concept. Like I said, I agree there's something to it. But good luck proving that Jesus's level is on the same as God. I'll give you a hint, you can't, so don't try pushing that idea.
As I have said the only burden my claims have is that what was done in Christ's case can not be demonstrated to be less significant than in God's. I am still sure you must have better and more versus for your position than that one you gave.
Okay, and I can just as easily say that what was done in Christ's case cannot be demonstrated to be of equal significance. Pretty simple there. You are the one however with the burden of proof for the claim that they are equal, since you are using that line of reasoning.
Actually you came up with a very very more simplistic definition for worship than I thought. I do not claim to agree with it but my assumption you were going to produce and arbitrarily narrow definition appears to be wrong.
Yes, going by the bare bones definition without any Trinitarian implications that aren't signified in the text is "very more simplistic" than the convoluted Trinitarian attempt to add something to it's not there.
You must first demonstrate that none of the three beings was the Lord.
Ummm no, First you must demonstrate that they were the LORD. You need to understand how burden of proof and logical argument works. You're the one who used that line of argument. Otherwise, it's similar to saying "Magical space bunnies give me candy canes at night, prove they dont!"
If one was then I have no need to explain beyond that point. I thought the opposite would result but it seems you have given yourself virtually every burden here.
You obviously have no idea how burden of proof works. You made the claims, you have the burden of proof. It's that simple. My argument doesn't require any convoluted reading into the text that's not there. Yours does. Let me know if you need it further broken down for you. By all means though, please explain why I've given myself the burden of proof of disproving your claims, I'd like to see what your understanding of burden of proof is.
Otherwise, like I said, I challenge you to disprove that magical space bunnies are leaving me candy canes at night. That's basically what you're doing. You're making a claim, and then somehow, in a way which I really don't know what's going on in your mind there, you think I've given myself the burden of proof of disproving your claim. When you say things like "The 3 Angels were the LORD" and I say they weren't and that there's nothing in the text to indicate that they were, that's all I need to say. There's nothing in the text to indicate such. You are the one who has to prove the text somehow indicates such. Kapiesce?
:shout:sorry1: In Greece, Diogenes with his lamp went from village to village looking for an honest man.
